Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in, the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

North-Eastern Electric Supply Bill.

Bill committed.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGOVERN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the conviction of Edward Corcoran, of Glasgow, charged with housebreaking, in whose case one of the judges on appeal was in favour of quashing the conviction; and if he will inquire into the case with a view to remission of the sentence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): The appeal referred to, which was based on a question of law, was dismissed, and I find no ground which would justify me in advising any remission of sentence.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. We had an understanding in this House many Sessions ago that questions affect-
ing individual cases should not be brought to the House, but should be discussed between the Minister and the Member of Parliament affected. Why should we waste the time of the House in discussing individual merits?

Mr. SPEAKER: I come across many cases in which questions are asked about individuals.

Mr. McGOVERN: Evidence was given at the trial of this man that, he had been previously convicted. Was not that a dangerous precedent and did it not constitute an unfair trial? In view of these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman not take some action?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is exactly the question which was considered by the Court of Appeal. The judges were of opinion that the conviction ought to be upheld. The sentence was never reviewed. It was the conviction that was upheld.

AGRICULTURAL CRFIDITS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in the position to make a statement on agricultural credits for Scotland?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The views of the Treasury are now being communicated to the four banks.

HOUSING, LANARKSHIRE.

Miss HORSBRUGH: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in a housing scheme of the lower ward of Lanarkshire 60 per cent. of the houses built consisted of living room, bedroom, kitchenette, and bathroom; and whether permission will be given to extend this percentage to other areas?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am aware that in the scheme referred to two apartment houses to the extent stated were allowed. Section 111 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, prohibits the erection of houses of less than three compartments save in exceptional circumstances and, following the practice of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend has as a general rule limited the proportion of two apartment houses in a scheme to 25 per cent. While the State subsidy
under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, has not been reduced, the cost of houses has fallen considerably in recent years, and a three compartment house can now be erected at a price less than that formerly paid for a house of two apartments. In addition, a suitable three apartment house can be designed which will cost practically the same as the ordinary type of two apartment house and be let at a similar rent. My right hon. Friend considers therefore that encouragement should not be given to the erection of an undue proportion of two apartment houses.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is the Secretary of State also in favour of four apartment houses being built, or will the authorities concentrate on three apartment houses? Will he remind local authorities that the Government policy is to concentrate on small houses?

Mr. SKELTON: The policy of the Government is to concentrate on slum clearances and on houses which can be let at a rent suitable for the people who can afford to pay a lower rent. Our preference, therefore, is for the three apartment house wherever it is shown, and I think it is easily shown over the greater part of Scotland, that that is the house most needed.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will my hon. Friend inform the local authorities that more three apartment houses should be built, if possible, than four apartment houses.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that the local authorities are in great doubt about that point. If my hon. Friend has any particular scheme in her mind, the matter will be settled when the scheme is brought forward to the Department. In any preliminary discussion there may be about it, opportunity will be taken to make that point clear.

MARKETING BOARD (RASPBERRIES).

Lord SCONE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give any information as to the progress achieved in setting up the proposed Scottish raspberry marketing board?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: A draft scheme providing for the formation of a Raspberry Marketing Board for Scotland has been submitted to me for approval, and
the public notice in accordance with the statutory procedure will be issued shortly. Scottish Members will be gratified that Scotland has led the way in the marketing reorganisation of an important branch of the agricultural industry.

ABLE-BODIED RELIEF (TEST WORK, MONTROSE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet made inquiry into the position of the unemployed able-bodied men at Montrose being forced to do test work and if he proposes taking any action?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend received a report regarding the practice at Montrose of requiring able-bodied persons to perform certain tasks in return for the relief afforded to them by the public assistance authority, and as a result he has had representations made to the County Council of Angus pointing out that it was impossible for the Department of Health to concur in the continuance of this system of test work. At the same time the attention of the county council was drawn to their statutory powers enabling them to make arrangements for the employment of applicants for able-bodied relief on works of public utility.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINES INSPECTION.

Mr. TINKER: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of inspections made by representatives of the workmen under Section 16 of the Mines Act for the year 1930 and the figures for 1928 and 1929; and will he give separate figures for Lancashire?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): In 1928, 1929 and 1930 respectively, 2,547, 2,727 and 3,631 inspections on behalf of the workmen were made in the whole of Great Britain. The corresponding figures for Lancashire are 10, 4, and 11.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that the number of inspectors allows of only one inspection per annum, and will he consider the advisability of compelling coal companies to pay inspectors to perform these duties?

Mr. FOOT: I will take into consideration what the hon. Member says.

MINERS' HOURS (CONVENTION).

Mr. MANDER: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines the present position with reference to the international convention for miners' hours?

Mr. LAWSON: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government on the question of ratifying the convention on hours of work in coal mines?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: His Majesty's Government is favourably disposed towards the convention. The detailed application of some of its provisions to the coal mines of this country presents certain problems which are under consideration. As soon as these points have been disposed of, the Government will be prepared to ratify the convention provided that the other six countries will do so at the same time.

Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that the Government are not proposing to take any action until the other European coal-producing countries are prepared to do the same?

Mr. FOOT: Yes.

Mr. LAWSON: When are they likely to reach a conclusion on these particular points? Are they material points?

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member will be aware that when the matter was brought up at Geneva recently the first question that was raised was that of simultaneous ratification. It is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that that question should be dealt with before the subsidiary difficulties are brought under consideration.

Mr. LAWSON: I understand that there were certain points in the convention itself of a technical nature on which there was some doubt. Are they material points, and are they receiving consideration?

Mr. FOOT: They are subsidiary to the main question of simultaneous ratification. They are still under consideration and will be under consideration until the matter has been dealt with.

Mr. LAWSON: When will the meeting take place?

Mr. FOOT: It is provisionally fixed for April.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Member go to Geneva himself or will he send some other representative of his Department?

Mr. Foot: The meeting is provisionally fixed to take place in April, but it depends upon some circumstances which are still outstanding. If it is held then, certainly it will be my desire to be present, as I was at the last meeting.

COAL MINES ACT.

Mr. TINKER: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is yet in a position to make a statement in respect of the communications he has addressed to the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation to express their views on the operation of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The position has not changed since the 17th February, when I answered a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. L. Smith).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will inform the House of his attitude towards the representation made to his Department on the desirability of extending Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, so as to make provision for district selling agencies?

Mr. FOOT: No such representations have been made to my Department.

Mr. WILLIAMS: After the experience gained over 12 months, will the hon. Member consider sympathetically any representations that are made by the colliery owners?

Mr. FOOT: I cannot promise anything more than consideration, but I shall be happy to receive any representations.

PULVERISED COAL.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has any statistics as to the horse power which is generated in land power stations and elsewhere in Great Britain by means of pulverised coal; and what steps he has taken to encourage the use of such methods and fuel as opposed to imported foreign oil?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I have no statistics of the horse power generated in indus-
trial undertakings in this country by means of pulverised coal, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information regarding pulverised coal installations in this country. As regards the second part of the question, research work is being carried out on pulverised coal at the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Following is the information:

The information available in my Department indicates that there are 29 electrical power stations, 28 colliery undertakings and 25 other large industrial establishments using pulverised coal for steam raising purposes. The electrical power stations mentioned used about 700,000 tons of pulverised coal during the year ended 31st March, 1930, which represented about 7.7 per cent. of the total quantity of coal and coke used at all electrical power stations. There are also some industrial concerns which use pulverised coal for purposes other than steam raising, but I have no detailed information as to numbers or fuel consumption.

Captain EVANS: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if His Majesty's Government will, in the interest of the British coal trade, before granting financial assistance of any kind for the partially-built giant Cunard vessel, make it a condition that it shall be fitted with water-tube boilers which can burn either pulverised fuel or oil; and if the Government will encourage by all means in their power similar systems being employed in all new ships?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The hon. and gallant Member's assumption as to financial assistance is unfounded and in these circumstances the first part of the question is hypothetical. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government are kept informed of the experiments which are being made in the use of pulverised fuel on board ships.

Captain EVANS: Do I understand that the Board of Trade have not been approached by this company to render financial assistance of any kind whatever?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There has been no direct approach made to the Board of Trade.

LLWYNYPIA COLLIERY (EXPLOSION).

Mr. JOHN: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines the date fixed for inquiry into the causes of the explosion at the Llwynypia, Colliery and the name of the person who will preside?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The inquiry will be held by Sir Henry Walker, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, who is losing no time in proceeding with the necessary preliminaries, but is not yet able to fix a date for the sitting of the court.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mine workers have been wholly displaced or put on short time during the past four weeks?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The number of wage earners on colliery books has increased during the four weeks ended 6th February, by 4,500, namely from 835,300 to 839,800. There was a considerable increase in part-time working during the period, the number of days' work lost having increased from approximately three quarters of a million during the week ended 16th January to rather over a million during the week ended 6th February.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Member connect that with the introduction of the Import Duties Bill?

GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. HANNON: 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines when he proposes to undertake the experiment of the introduction of gas detectors into certain coal pits; and if he will explain the process by which the proposed practical tests will be carried out?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I have asked the interests directly concerned—including the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation to co-operate in organising and watching thorough pit trials on a working scale with an automatic firedamp detector. It is my hope that the scheme—which will require to be worked out carefully—will be settled by common consent; and discussions to that end will be conducted as speedily as possible.

Mr. HANNON: If I put down a question a month hence, will the hon. Member be in a position to answer it?

Mr. FOOT: Judging from the many questions I have already received I think probably before a month's time I shall be again questioned by other hon. Members. From inquiries I have made, however, I find I cannot arrange to put this experiment into operation until at least three weeks hence.

Mr. HANNON: Will this result in the possibility of saving life in collieries?

Mr. FOOT: That is a question which cannot be discussed by way of question and answer, but, if the hon. Member cares to see me, I will put before him all the information I have.

LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Captain NORTH: 63.
asked the Lord President of the Council what is the present position with regard to research work on low-temperature carbonisation of coal?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the scheme of work outlined by the then Secretary for Mines in a statement made to the House on the 5th May last. As I stated in reply to a question on the 23rd September last, it was decided to proceed with that scheme with some modifications in the detailed arrangements. Since that date the necessary work has been pressed on with as quickly as possible. For further details I would refer the hon. Member to the last Annual Report of the Fuel Research Board, published on the 4th January last, especially pages 38-54.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FRANCE (BRITISH COAL).

Mr. BATEY: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any further representations have been made to France regarding the limitation of British coal; and whether he anticipates any abolition of the embargo?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to a question by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne).

Mr. BATEY: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade on what date the 15 per cent. tax on British coal by the French Government will cease to operate?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to be able to say that a decree has been issued in Paris this morning whereby the surtax on coal will be withdrawn as from Thursday next, 25th February.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as a result of the withdrawal of the surtax, licences have been altered so that British exporters can increase their exports, or is the position in that respect as it was before?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It relieves the coal trade of the burden of the surtax. Of course, it does not affect the question of the quota.

Mr. HANNON: Is this not a clear indication of the value of the retaliatory duties contemplated in the Import Duties Bill?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I rather regard it as an example of the French desire fur what is known as appeasement.

Mr. THORNE: Is not an increase of the quota more important than the abolition of the 15 per cent. surtax?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any of the Dominions, and, if so, which, have so far given any indication of their intentions to admit free of duty the products of British industry as a return for the benefits accorded to them under the Import Duties Bill?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) on the 16th February.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not the fact that before the recent financial crisis in Australia over 20 per cent. of British goods were going in on the free list?

COAL EXPORTS.

Captain NORTH: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any steps are being taken to ascertain before the
Ottawa Conference whether it would be possible to satisfy all Canadian coal requirements from British mines?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The possibility of extending the sale of coal from the United Kingdom in Canada is being carefully studied as part of the preparations for the Ottawa Conference.

Mr. PRICE: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal exported from the Humber ports, respectively, for the six months ended 31st January, 1932, and the place of destination; and for the same six months in 1920 and each year up to 31st January, 1931?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the total exports from the Humber ports during the period specified in each of the years 1920-21 to 1931-32; and I will send to the hon. Member the further details he asks for in a statistical statement too long to justify printing it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


COAL shipped abroad, as cargo, from the Humber Ports.


Six months ended January 31st.
Tons.


1921
179,949


1922
1,010,031


1923
4,072,845


1924
4,574,205


1925
2,394,176


1926
1,765,278


1928
1,337,263


1929
2,340,314


1930
3,435,864


1931
3,149,430


1932
2,081,990

Particulars for the six months ended 31st January, 1927, are omitted, in view of the stoppage of work at coal mines in 1926.

Mr. PRICE: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal exported to countries within the British Empire and to foreign countries, respectively, in 1913, and each year from 1920 to 1931, inclusive?

Mr. FOOT: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


Year.
Quantity of Coal exported from Great Britain.


To British Possessions.
To Foreign Countries.
Total.




1,000 tons.
1,000 tons.
1,000 tons.


1913
…
2,319
71,081
73,400


1920
…
1,890
23,042
24,932


1921
…
1,880
22,781
24,661


1922
…
3,732
60,466
64,198


1923
…
2,059
75,915
77,974


1924
…
2,121
57,058
59,179


1925
…
2,269
46,305
48,574


1926
…
790
18,773
19,563


1927
…
2,539
46,202
48,741


1928
…
2,099
45,529
47,628


1929
…
2,809
55,001
57,810


1930
…
2,374
50,032
52,406


1931
…
1,767
38,558
40,325

Notes.

1. In order to secure comparability, shipments to Egypt (including Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which cannot be distinguished) have been included under the heading "Foreign Countries."

As shipments to Ireland (amounting usually to nearly 2½ million tons a year) cannot be distinguished in the earlier years, they have been excluded throughout.

2. The majority of the coal mines were idle during a considerable period of the years 1921 and 1926 owing to disputes.

AUSTRALIAN TIMBER.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of the imports of Australian turpentine, piles during the past 12 months; and whether any action is being taken to bring this timber to the notice of harbour boards, railway companies, and big construction firms?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that particulars of the imports of turpentine piles from Australia are not available as these goods are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom. The Empire Marketing Board lose no opportunity of bringing this and other suitable Empire timbers to the notice of bodies such as those mentioned in the question.

MERCHANDISE MARRS (TEA).

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that packets of tea are still being sold in
this country bearing labels calculated to lead consumers to believe that the contents are of Empire origin, whereas in reality they consist partly of foreign-grown teas; and whether, in view of the fact that no action can be taken to deal with this matter under the Merchandise Marks Act, he will take steps to amend that Act at an early date, in order to enable action to be taken in this and similar cases?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what particular cases my hon. Friend may have in mind. I may say, however, that, while the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, found that the difficulties in the way of marking blended tea are so serious that they could not recommend the making of an Order, the use of misleading descriptions may constitute an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which prohibits the application to goods of a false trade description. It is open to any interested party to prosecute in respect of any such breach of the Act.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not of great importance to give consideration to Empire-produced tea in this country, as against tea produced in foreign countries?

MEAT AND WHEAT.

Mr. McGOVERN: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what supplies of meat and wheat are stored in this country; and is he satisfied that there is a sufficiency in case of emergency?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Reliable particulars of the supplies of meat in this country are not available, but it is understood that they are ample. The supply of wheat (including flour in terms of wheat) normally available in February is believed to be sufficient for about two months' consumption; the port stocks at the beginning of this month were higher than at the corresponding date in 1930 or 1931.

Mr. HURD: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the separate items which make up the total of about 11,000,000 cwts. of canned, boxed, bagged, and preserved meats imported into this country; and to which of these the new 10 per cent. revenue duty will apply?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will find particulars of the imports of various classes of meat in the Monthly Accounts
relating to Trade and Navigation in the United Kingdom, the December issue of which contains full particulars relating to the year 1931 and each of the preceding two years, and also in the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom. As regards the last part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the First Schedule to the Import Duties Bill, under which any extracts and essences of meat or meat preserved in airtight containers will be liable to duty.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is considerable confusion as to where, exactly, the application of the 10 per cent. duty will lie?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope that it will become abundantly clear in the course of to-day.

Mr. THORNE: Who decides the prices of the articles mentioned in this question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer that question.

COASTAL SHIPPING TRADE.

Mr. LEWIS: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to exclude entirely from our coastal trade the vessels of France, Greece, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Turkey, Japan, the United States of America, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile until such time as these countries allow our ships to take part in their coastal trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to the reply made to my hon. Friend's question of 1st December last.

Mr. LEWIS: What alternative method has the right hon. Gentleman to suggest in order to secure a share of this coastal trade for British ships?

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that our policy is to continue to give our coastal trade to foreign countries without exacting any compensation from them in the way of part of their coastal trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think my hon. Friend is over estimating the amount of the coastal trade held by foreign countries.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that a great deal of the coastal trade is lost to this country by the
restrictions imposed by foreign countries on our shipping industry? Does my right hon. Friend not think that reciprocal restrictions should be adopted by this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that is quite true, but the reply to that is not to exclude them from sharing in the coastal traffic here.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which, if any, of the principal maritime countries of the world prohibit any vessels other than those flying their own flags from engaging in coastal traffic?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 17th November in answer to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), of which I am sending him a copy.

LIQUID EGGS (IMPORTS).

Mr. DREWE: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of liquid eggs imported during the year 1931, giving the countries of origin?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to state the number of liquid eggs imported into the United Kingdom during 1931, but the total weight of liquid or frozen eggs, not in shell, was 775,388 cwts., about 99 per cent. of which was consigned from China.

Mr. DREWE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that they conform to a reasonable standard of purity?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is not the business of the Board of Trade but of the Ministry of Health.

HORSES (IMPORTS).

Mr. DREWE: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of horses imported during 1930 and 1931, respectively, stating the number from Empire sources and foreign countries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total number of horses (including ponies) imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1930, consigned from British countries (mostly from the Irish Free State) was
9,856, and from foreign countries 2,022. The corresponding figures for 1931 were 9,981 and 1,973, respectively.

Mr. DREWE: In view of the present conditions of the horse-breeding industry in this country, does my right hon. Friend think it is still necessary to import horses from foreign countries?

FACTORY SITES.

Mr. PERKINS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any inquiries from foreign firms manufacturing tinned milk as to sites in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that one or two firms are making inquiries as to sites, but my Department has not been approached in the matter.

ITALY (COAL IMPORT DUTY).

Captain A. EVANS: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received a, reply from the Italian Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Italy on the question of the landing duty imposed on coal imported into that country by sea?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; not yet.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement with regard to the suggested transference of sections of the textile industry to the Dominions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure what my hon. Friend has precisely in mind but I may say that the possibility of United Kingdom industries and industries in other parts of the Empire making arrangements for mutually beneficial co-operation is under consideration in connection with the preparations for the Ottawa Conference.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Has it been suggested to the textile industry that they should transfer part of their machinery to any of the Dominions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; I do not think any official suggestion has been made of that kind, but any arrangement which is made between the textile trade of this country and the Dominions will, of course, have our blessing.

HOLLAND (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. GIBSON: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dutch Government has imposed retrospective legislation restricting the quantities of certain classes of goods entering Holland; and, in view of the effect this restriction is having on exports from this country, what steps he is prepared to take in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The new Dutch legislation which imposes quotas upon the imports of certain commodities including clothing, woollens and worsteds, boots and shoes, is only retrospective in the sense that the first period to which quotas relate begins in one case on 1st January and in the others on 1st February, while the decrees were actually issued on 4th February. The question of the effect of the restrictions on United Kingdom trade and of the steps which it may be possible to take are under consideration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the action of the Dutch Government any connection at all with the Abnormal Importations Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as we know, there is no connection whatever between it and the Abnormal Importations Act.

Mr. GIBSON: In view of the fact that clothing manufacturers in the West Riding have large quantities of clothing made specially for that market, and that they cannot now export it, will the right hon. Gentleman press for a modification of this restriction?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are going into the matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with me at the Department about it. He has special knowledge of the subject.

ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS ACT.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that cast-iron porcelain enamelled baths have been imported in abnormal quantities recently and that these baths are a finished article when imported, he will now consider including them in a future Order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply I gave on the
16th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Norton (Major Thomas) and other hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. LEWIS: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether at the forthcoming conference at Ottawa the consideration of possible preferential duties will be confined to those articles upon which it will be possible to impose such duties within the scope of the Import Duties Bill without further legislation being necessary?

Sir H. CROFT: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give an assurance that no commodities will be excluded from consideration at the Imperial Conference at Ottawa, and that the British representatives at that Conference will have a free hand in promoting agreements involving preference on any products?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Ottawa Conference will obviously be free to discuss any proposal which the representatives of any Dominion or other Government concerned may desire to bring forward, and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would certainly not seek to exclude beforehand any proposal which might be made. But final decision on the part of any Government must, of course, always be subject to any general considerations involved in the domestic policy of that Government.

Mr. LEWIS: Does that mean that the representatives of His Majesty's Government will be willing to discuss at Ottawa the question of a preferential duty on meat?

Mr. THOMAS: It means that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to discuss at Ottawa any proposals brought forward by any Government.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the very important decisions to be taken on the Schedule, may the House definitely understand that the question of meat and pig products will not be precluded from an agreement at Ottawa?

Mr. THOMAS: I have clearly and specifically indicated that it is open to
any Dominion to bring forward any proposals, including meat or anything else; but equally it is open to the representatives of His Majesty's Government to consider any proposal on its merits, having due regard to their own domestic position.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to put down a proposal to reduce tariffs instead of increasing them?

Mr. THOMAS: The reason why I support the tariff proposals, is because I believe that as a bargaining power they are the only means of reducing tariffs.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the question of tariffs on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SASKATCHEWAN (IMMIGRATION).

Sir GERALD HURST: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has had brought to his notice the report of the Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Immigration; and if he can hold out any prospect of steps being taken to increase the proportion of immigration from the United Kingdom into this province?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have seen the report in question but the decision as to further immigration from the United Kingdom into Saskatchewan rests with the Dominion and Provincial Governments, and I have not received any intimation that they regard further immigration into that Province as opportune at the present time.

Sir G. HURST: Do His Majesty's Government intend to raise the question of migration at the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: The question of migration is in my personal opinion definitely associated and linked up with the prosperity of the Dominions, and if we can evolve a scheme which will restore their prosperity then the question of migration, obviously, becomes a practical question, and must be considered in that light.

Mr. HANNON: My hon. and learned Friend asks whether His Majesty's Government will raise this question at the Ottawa Conference and the Secretary of
State has not answered it. Will His Majesty's Government raise this question at the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: I know my hon. Friend sufficiently well to know that in his business relations, no matter what he may do in this House, he is always very careful; and I am going to be the same at Ottawa.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (CANADA).

Sir G. HURST: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what sums have been so far expended on settlement in Canada under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922; and if any balances of the sums granted are now available to finance further settlements in Western Canada?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The expenditure from the Vote for Oversea Settlement under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, on settlement schemes in Canada amounted to £872,519 to the end of 1931. The bulk of this money has been advanced to the settlers by way of loan. Any unexpended balances on the Vote, after taking into account any repayments of loans, are surrendered to the Exchequer year by year in accordance with the provisions of the Appropriation Act and are therefore not available to finance further settlement.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: May I ask whether funds are still available under the Empire Settlement Act to continue the £10 passage scheme, and whether migrants are still going out under that scheme?

Mr. THOMAS: Funds are available, but there is a moral responsibility in advising people to go out to any of our Dominions unless they are sure of a job in advance. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not only so advising, but I am persuading people not to take a risk when I know that there is little prospect for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. MANDER: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what representations have been received from the Australian Government with reference to the action of Japan in the Far East; and whether there is consultation and agreement with Australia in all
measures for bringing the dispute to a close in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No such representations have been received from His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia. As stated in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) on the 4th February, His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions have been kept in the closest touch with the situation throughout, and I have no reason to doubt that the policy followed commands their general assent.

Mr. MANDER: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the attack on Australian Empire policy made at the last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations by the Japanese representative?

Mr. THOMAS: I saw an account, but I was much more interested by my personal discussions with the Australian representatives, which influenced me much more than any discussion by any outside body.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Southern Rhodesia Bill, A.B. 10, 1932, now proposed for the restraint of African natives is based on legislation in operation elsewhere, especially in South Africa?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Since I replied to my right hon. and gallant Friend's inquiries last week I have ascertained that an alternative measure is under consideration in Southern Rhodesia, and I gather that it is not proposed to proceed with the Bill to which he refers in its present form.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOSS OF FISHING BOAT.

Sir CHARLES BARRIE: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will have an inquiry made into the loss of the motor fishing boat "Queen of the Fleet," on 21st September, 1931, when there was loss of life?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A preliminary inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the vessel has been held under
the provisions of Section 465 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

Sir C. BARRIE: Is it not a fact that full inquiry has been refused by the Board of Trade, and will the right hon. Gentleman examine the matter further?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: An inquiry under Section 466 was, my advisers told me, unnecessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL SMALL ARMS FACTORY, ENFIELD.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps are being taken to find employment for the workmen under notice for discharge from the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The superintendent of the factory is in close touch with the local Employment Exchange, to which he is notifying in advance the names and particulars of the workmen affected. The men in question will be given a week's warning in addition to the customary week's notice of discharge.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great hardship which is being caused to these men who are being turned out of permanent Government employment without the hope of getting anything?

Mr. COOPER: I am aware of the great hardship, but the employment was never permanent, and we are doing everything in our power to alleviate that hardship.

REMOUNTS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any steps are being taken by his Department to ascertain whether it will be possible in future to obtain all the remounts required annually by the British Army from within Great Britain itself?

Mr. COOPER: Owing to uncertainty as to the number of remounts which will be required in future years it is impossible to say whether they will all he obtainable in Great Britain, but the policy of purchasing as many as possible in Great Britain will continue to be pursued.

DEATH SENTENCES.

Mr. McGOVERN: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of men in the Army who were sentenced to death during the late War by order of court martial; and in how many cases the order was carried out?

Mr. COOPER: During the period 1914 to 1918, approximately 2,690 persons were sentenced to death after trial by court martial. The sentence was carried into effect in 287 cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA.

Earl WINTERTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the importance of Burma, historically and in population, area, and resources, opportunity will be given to the House in the present Session to discuss the report of the recent Burma Round Table Conference and the declaration of policy in regard to constitutional advance in that country made by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am obliged to the Noble Lord for drawing attention to this matter which is of great importance both to Burma and to the Empire as a whole and which certainly ought to come before Parliament at the proper time. But I am afraid that it is not possible to make any definite arrangement at present; and it would be preferable in any case to defer a Debate in this House until the people of Burma have had an opportunity to record their decision on the question of separation from India. For it is on this decision, as the Noble Lord is aware and as the Prime Minister's statement made clear, that the policy announced at the close of the Conference depends.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Council in Burma has passed a resolution unanimously in favour of the decision reached by our conference; and, in view of the fact that the matter has already been discussed in the Burma Council, will he try to find time, if possible, before the end of the Session for a discussion of the matter in this House?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of that, and I am very glad to see it. I should be only too pleased to accede to the Noble Lord's request if we could find time, but
he knows as well as I do the difficulty which arises from the fact that we are so close to Easter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK RATE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the date of the last conversation between the directors of the Bank of England and himself on the question of the Bank Rate?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman questioned me about Bank Rate last Tuesday and I can add nothing to the answers then given.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the last meeting between the Bank directors and himself actually took place, and was it before or after the recent reduction in the Bank Rate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say, speaking from memory, exactly when the last meeting took place.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were any minutes kept of those meetings? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Why not?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

BEER DUTY.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he cart give the alcohol content. of beer, cider, ginger wine, ginger beer and ginger ale; and, in view of the failure of the extra Beer Duty to bring in the revenue that was expected, will he consider, in the next Budget, trying the experiment of halving the present Beer Duty and placing the half-duty taken off on soft drinks in proportion to their alcohol content?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the first part of the question, I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to compare the relative incidence of the taxation of alcohol in different beverages; I am afraid that such a comparison is scarcely practicable, owing to the wide variations which are found in the alcoholic content of each one of these beverages. With regard to the second part, I have noted the suggestion.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain to the House why it is that the drink trade and the poisonous drugs trade are the only trades where it is necessary to regulate the output; and will he also bear in mind that the drink trade is conducting an active propaganda in this House by asking questions about taxation, and yet it has made more profit than any other trade in the country?

GOVERNMENT LOANS (CONVERSION).

Mr. MANDER: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to make an appeal for a voluntary conversion loan in view of the importance of so far as practicable carrying out the principle of equality of sacrifice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such steps are in contemplation.

Mr. MANDER: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that there can be no equality of sacrifice until such a loan conversion has taken place; and does he not feel in danger of missing the tide?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Lord SCONE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are now threatening to refuse exemption from Entertainments Duty to all musical festivals when single-entry classes are permitted, on the ground that such classes provide entertainment without competition, and that such a step will impede the progress of musical education in this country; and if, in these circumstances, he will instruct the Commissioners to proceed no further on these lines?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that in considering claims by the promoters of musical festivals for the grant of exemption from Entertainments Duty under Section 1 (5) (d) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are not satisfied that the statutory conditions of exemption are fulfilled where any noncompetitive items are included in the programme of the entertainment, and that exemption is accordingly refused in such cases. I understand that this has always been the practice of the Commissioners, and I see no reason to interfere with their discretion in the matter.

Lord SCONE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in order to be consistent, he will have to charge Entertainments Duty on agricultural shows where single-entry classes are permitted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no alteration in practice.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what other methods, other than the maintenance of a high Bank rate, are being used in order to acquire dollar currency to repay the loan from America?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is nothing which I can usefully add, to my previous statements in relation to this matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the universal opinion in business circles that there should be free purchase of foreign exchanges and free right to export capital from this country; and is he aware of the injury to our export trade due to the embargo on foreign loans?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be very rash to assume that there is a universal opinion on any subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The universal opinion, as exhibited by the City of London on this subject.

Mr. HANNON: Is not that an extremely foolish question?

IMPORT DUTIES (FOOD STUFFS).

Major NATHAN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue he will derive from the imposition upon imported food stuffs, other than animal feeding stuffs, of the general ad valorem duty?

Mr. MALLALIEU: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue to be derived from the imposition upon imported animal feeding-stuffs of the general ad valorem duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The estimates of revenue from the general ad valorem duties as a whole will be laid before the House in the Budget. Separate estimates for the two particular categories mentioned in these questions could not in any case be made, as it is impossible
to say how much of the imports of maize, oats, beans and other products are used as animal feeding stuffs and how much for other purposes.

Major NATHAN: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissent from the statement that the revenue from imported foodstuffs would be of the order of £10,000,000 out of the £30,000,000 estimated by the President of the Board of Trade?

COINAGE (SILVER).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what will be the percentage of silver in the new silver coins as compared with the percentage in those which are now being withdrawn?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The fineness of silver in the silver coins now being issued is 500 parts per 1,000. The fineness of silver in those which are now being withdrawn is 500 parts per 1,000 for the coins made at the Mint since the passing of the Coinage Act. 1920, and 925 parts per 1,000 for those of earlier date.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL FORMS (WELSH LANGUAGE).

Mr. JOHN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction prevailing in Wales because of the printing of the Income Tax and assessment forms in the English language; and whether, in view of the difficulty entailed to numbers of Welshmen, he will consider the question of issuing these forms in the Welsh language?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to suppose that any difficulties which may exist are sufficient to justify the expenditure which would be involved in giving effect to this suggestion.

Mr. JOHN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that inasmuch as Welsh people have to bear an equal responsibility with English people as regards the filling up of these Income Tax forms, they are entitled to equal privileges and equal rights; and are they not entitled to have
these forms presented in a manner which they can understand?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member's question seems to be founded on the assumption that a large number of Welsh Income Tax payers are unable to read English, and it seems to me that that suggestion has no solid foundation.

Mr. JOHN: Is it not the case that a large number of Welsh people are unable to follow these demands on the assessment forms, and that consequently they are very frequently paying more than their proper obligations to the State?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not only Welsh people who are sometimes unable to follow the forms issued in connection with Income Tax, or who think that they pay more than they ought to pay.

Mr. JOHN: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the difficulties of the Welsh farmer to understand the forms claiming exemption from dog licence, he will consider issuing these forms in the farmers' native language?

Major ELLIOT: The dog licence duty in Wales is not an Imperial but a local taxation licence duty, and it is administered by the county and county borough councils. I have not received any representation from those authorities as to any difficulty experienced by Welsh farmers in claiming exemption. I may add that the necessary instructions for claiming exemption are contained in a public notice which is exhibited in post offices and elsewhere, and which is already issued in Welsh as well as in English.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour how many cases of transitional payments have been dealt with by the public assistance committee in Birmingham to the latest date for which figures are available; in how many cases have full benefits been allowed; in how many cases partial benefit; and how many applicants have failed to sustain any claim?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the reply is somewhat
long and contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Between 12th November, 1931, and 23rd January, 1932, the public assistance committee for the county borough of Birmingham gave determinations on 37,058 applications for transitional payments. In 11,465 cases payment was allowed at the maximum benefit rates and in 15,362 at lower rates, while in 10,231 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payments being made. The figures include revisions and renewals of determinations, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FEEDING STUFFS (IMPORT DUTY).

Major OWEN: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what reply has been given to the representations made to him with regard to the probable effects of the taxation of imported feeding stuffs upon the cost of raising cattle, pigs, and poultry?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I have assured those who have made such representations that they are receiving the earnest consideration of the Government.

POTATO INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION COMMISSION).

Major CARVER: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the personnel of the reorganisation committee which is to be set up to deal with potato growing and marketing; and when this body is expected to commence its operations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement I made in the House on the 11th February as to the Government's agricultural policy. Before appointing a reorganisation commission for the potato industry, I await representations from the growers that such a course is desired.

BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Major CARVER: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what amount of money was paid by the beet-sugar factories to the farmers for their sugar-beets during the last season for which records are complete; and how does this amount compare with the amount of assistance given
to the factories during the same season by direct subsidy on sugar and molasses and by refund of excise duty, and by any other Government assistance?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In the 1930-31 season, the last, for which records are complete, the beet-sugar factories paid £7,626,000 to farmers for beets, while State assistance to the industry amounted to £8,810,000, including £6,140,000 for subsidy on sugar and molasses, and £2,670,000 duty preference.

Mr. HANNON: In the view of the Minister, was not this money very well invested in the interests of the products of British agriculture?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total amount the League of Nations has cost since its inception; and what is the amount Great Britain has contributed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The expenditure of the League since it was founded until the end of 1931 amounted to £11,079,090. The contribution made by Great Britain for the same period amounts to, approximately, £1,080,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of that we had to pay for other countries who were in default?

Mr. EDEN: Not without notice, but I think nothing.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is money much better spent than on fiddling about with tariffs?

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that we are spending about one-thousandth part on the League of Nations that we are spending in preparation for war?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (VACCINATION).

Mr. GROVES: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether any examinations have been made by his medical officials in regard to the nature and size of the scars produced by the new method of vaccination adopted on the 1st October, 1929; and, if so, with what result?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is advised that the nature and size of the scars are such as may be expected from the method of vaccination employed, and have not called for comment by his medical officers.

Mr. GROVES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department is satisfied with the results?

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that there have been no results to call for any comment by the advisers.

Mr. GROVES: 67.
asked the Minister of Health how many cases of, and deaths from, post-vaccinal encephalitis or other disease of the central nervous system following vaccination have been brought to the notice of his Department since the adoption of the new vaccination regulations on the 1st October, 1929?

Mr. E. BROWN: Since the 1st October, 1929, 38 cases of suspected disease of the central nervous system following vaccination, including suspected cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis, have come to the notice of my Department. Enquiries showed that in at least five of these cases the suspicion could not be verified. In 18 cases vaccination had been followed within a short period by the occurrence of a disease of the central nervous system without there being any reason to associate this disease with the antecedent vaccination. Of these 13 were fatal. There remain 15 cases in which the occurrence of post-vaccinal encephalitis was definitely established and of these eight proved fatal.

Mr. GROVES: In view of these very alarming figures, can the hon. Gentleman say whether he is not prepared to appoint a committee to consider the abolition of vaccination?

Mr. BROWN: I should like to refer my hon. Friend to a report, No. 62—

Mr. GROVES: I have read it.

Mr. BROWN: Then the hon. Member will know that that report does discuss this question at very great length.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider not compelling people to be vaccinated?

Mr. BROWN: That is an irrelevant issue to this question.

Mr. GROVES: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the recent prevalence of mild small-pox in certain areas in England and Wales, evidence has been obtained as to what relation the incidence of the disease bears to the regularity or otherwise of vaccination in the counties affected; and what reports have been received from his medical officials with regard to this circumstance?

Mr. E. BROWN: This question is discussed on pages 49 and 50 of the report on certain aspects of small-pox prevention which was published last year. My right hon. Friend has received no more recent report on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (MR. AND MRS. RUEGG).

Mr. MAXTON: 65.
(for Mr. KIRKWOOD) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has inquired into the treatment by the Chinese authorities of Mr. and Mrs. Ruegg, organisers of the Pan Pacific Trade Union, who were arrested in the International Settlement at Shanghai with the assent of the British authorities; and whether he will make a statement?

Mr. EDEN: These persons were arrested, under the name of Noulens, by order of the Special District Court, a purely Chinese tribunal, which alone had jurisdiction over them. The Shanghai municipal police are bound to carry out the orders issued by that court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It was by the same court's order that Mr. and Mrs. Ruegg were handed over to the extra-Settlement authorities for trial. The hon. Member is in error in saying that these persons were arrested with the assent of the British authorities. Such assent was neither asked for nor given. Mr. and Mrs. Ruegg have in the past enjoyed a variety of aliases, but they have not numbered the British among the selection of nationalities to which they have laid claim. There is, therefore, no ground which would justify my right hon. Friend in making inquiries into their treatment by the Chinese authorities, and he has not done so.

Mr. MAXTON: I thank the hon. Member for his very humorous reply, but does he not think it is rather a curious sidelight on the way in which trade unionists have to work in the Far East when they have to adopt a number of aliases? Does he suggest that these people were engaged in criminal activities?

Mr. EDEN: No, I suggest nothing. Fortunately their activities are not our responsibility.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask if the British Government take no responsibility for European citizens—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in the International Settlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. There are too many Under-Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs. Can the hon. Member say if the British Government take no responsibility for European citizens in Shanghai who may be put into circumstances where they may be condemned to death, and is he aware that the rumour is very prevalent in trade union circles that this lady and gentleman have been executed by the Chinese authorities?

Mr. EDEN: This is purely a matter within the jurisdiction of this Chinese court, and we have no authority to intervene, still less so since the persons concerned are not British subjects.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that it is not in the competence of the court in the International Settlement to decide when and if a European subject is suitable for transference to the local Chinese court?

Mr. EDEN: This court has complete jurisdiction, and it exercises it within its own legal powers.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is not this another matter for the League of Nations Assembly?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what the business will be on Friday?

Mr. BALDWIN: Consideration of Civil Excesses Vote, 1930, in Committee of Supply; Report stage of outstanding Supplementary Estimates; Report and Third Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions)
Bill (Lords); Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill; and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman come to a decision whether it is intended to proceed with the Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: Not this week certainly. I might be able to give a more definite reply to-morrow if the hon. Member will put a question down.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Save the Government's time, and withdraw it!

BILLS PRESENTED.

FAIRS BILL

"to amend the law with respect to games and competitions at fairs and other places," presented by Mr. Groves; supported by Mr. Palmer, Mr. Wise, Mr. Doran, Mr. Denville, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Hirst and Mr. John Jones; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

WHEAT BILL,

"to secure to growers of home-grown millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor; to make provision for imposing on millers and importers of flour obligations to make payments calculated by reference to a quota of such wheat and as to the disposal of the moneys thereby received; to provide for such millers being required to purchase unsold stocks of such wheat; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir John Gilmour; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin and Sir Archibald Sinclair; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Lees-Jones, Captain Peake, and Vice-Admiral Taylor; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Denville, and Mr. Llewellyn-Jones.

Report to lie on the Table.

Orders of the Day — IMPORTS DUTIES BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 22nd February.]

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Power of Board of Trade to impose supplementary duties in case of foreign discrimination.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 20, after the word "Treasury," insert the words:
(given after consultation with any other Government Department which appears to the Treasury to be interested)."—[Mr. Runciman.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, after the word "on," to insert the words:
the importation into the United Kingdom of".

Mr. ATTLEE: May we have some explanation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is a purely drafting Amendment, and I do not think that I need trouble the Committee with an explanation. It is in order to bring the Clause into line with Clause 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I have a manuscript Amendment which I desire to move in page 11, line 20, after the word "may," to insert the words:
after consultation with and upon the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
I do not put this forward in any sense as a wrecking Amendment. Clause 12 is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill for that deals with foreign discrimination. The use of the powers under it may be of serious consequence to this nation. Arising from their use, there may be disputes regarding trading conditions. Wars have been caused by trading disputes, and, if these powers are not used wisely, there is great danger of international friction. The Bill has been improved by the two Amendments put in by the President of the Board of Trade, but as far as I can see there will be difficulties in deciding when nations are dis-
criminating against us. For instance, the rate of exchange may give us an advantage which other nations do not possess. Would the imposition of a tax by a foreign nation in order to balance the advantage of the exchange be counted as discriminatory? The Clause gives the Board of Trade powers which, in our judgment, are too wide, and if the advisory committee is to be judicial in character and free from outside pressure in taking and sifting evidence for or against, we think that this Amendment will be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. The words I suggest would relieve the President of the Board Of Trade of a tremendous responsibility. There may in future be some President with extreme views on this question, and in order to guard against that contingency and to be assured that discriminatory action is not to be taken until consideration has been given, I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to put us in the position of defending ourselves effectively against foreign discrimination. If the Government are to have that power, they must be free to act with promptitude, and it would be absurd for long discussions to go on in this country before the Government were enabled to take the necessary action against any discrimination from which it was suffering. This Clause is not of much use for the present, for we have a most-favoured-nation treaty with every country in the world of importance except one, and that is France—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting beyond this Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I want to know what is the scope of the Clause. This is a Clause to be used in certain eventualities in case there is discrimination. We can only use it provided we are internationally free to use it. If we have entered into an agreement with other nations—

The CHAIRMAN: I think that that question comes on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question which arises under this Amendment concerns the machinery by which the principle of the Clause if approved by the Committee is to be carried out. It is quite clear that the contingency against which we have to provide is the withholding from this country of most-favoured-nation treatment. An infringement of that may arise in a variety of ways, but I cannot imagine any way in which it would arise in which the Board of Trade would not be the office through which the Advisory Committee, if it were inquiring into it, would have to learn the facts of the case. The Advisory Committee are not in a position to say whether or not there has been discrimination, because they do not know. Any information as to the action of an offending Government abroad must be obtained, through the medium of the Foreign Office, by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade are the body capable of forming a view, and obviously they ought not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Advisory Committee. Further, the Advisory Committee might take a very long time to inquire into the case, and meanwhile the discrimination against this country might continue. It might arise not only on the question of a tariff, but in the matter of a quota. This question is obviously not one for the Advisory Committee. They have other duties, which are clearly laid down in the Bill, but this is not one of them, and in the circumstances it appears to be much better, for administrative purposes, to leave the administration of this Clause with the Government itself and on their responsibility.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I quite realise that the information in these cases would have to be obtained by the Board of Trade, because the situation with which this Amendment would deal could arise only on account of some incident, such as the imposition of an extra duty upon an article of export from this country, being brought to the attention of the Board of Trade. This is a manuscript Amendment, and probably the right hon. Gentleman has not had time fully to consider it, but it is not proposed to remove the decision from the Board of Trade. All that is suggested is that the Board of Trade should consult with and get a
recommendation from the Advisory Committee. There is a real reason behind this Amendment. It is not brought forward to put sand into the machine, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks, or to delay the proceedings. We are setting up what is really three-decker machinery. First there is the 10 per cent. duty; then there is the extra duty to be imposed upon articles which are judged to need protection; and on top of this there is the purpose—in my view the best purpose, if it succeeds—of preventing extra and hostile duties being placed upon our goods. What we want to do is to co-ordinate the three processes and not to isolate them.
As I understand it, the Advisory Committee are to take a full survey of our industrial system; they are not to consider only the effect of a duty on an isolated article, but its effect on the industry of the country as a whole. Let me take a, practical example. Suppose we put an extra duty on woollens and France retaliated with an extra duty of 15 per cent. on coal. We might then say, "We are now going to retaliate by putting an extra 20 per cent. duty on some other article." We suggest that before the President of the Board of Trade takes any such action he should go to the Advisory Committee, who are taking the larger view, and say, "You have put this duty on French woollens, and that has resulted in the French imposing an extra duty on coal, and we propose retaliating on France by putting an extra duty on silks. What do you think of that?" Is that an unreasonable proposal? We do not want to have a number of isolated Departments each working on their own. That might have a disastrous effect. Further, not every President of the Board of Trade will hays the same equitable temper and Free Trade disposition of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is to be there, we can largely trust him, but Ministers come and Ministers go, and we might have a Minister of the character and temperament of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft)—more warlike, more bellicose, who might come to a decision which would launch us into a serious tariff war. [Interruption.] Apparently the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth rejoices at the prospect.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You are making serious allegations against colleagues.

Sir P. HARRIS: It might bring about a state of affairs in international trade which would be worse than the present. The right hon. Gentleman wants these powers in order to lower tariffs and to bring about what has been called real Free Trade. There are hon. Members who say, "We are all for free imports, and, if other countries will lower their tariffs, we are in favour of abolishing tariffs." On the other hand, there is another type of mind which believes in tariffs for their own sake, believes in an economic nationalism, each country standing on its own, and which would isolate Great Britain from the Continent of Europe and tie it up to the Empire, separating it economically from the rest of the world. That is the type of mind from which we wish to protect the country. We want to see a judicial atmosphere introduced into these proceedings. I hope that in its final form the Advisory Committee will be judicial in character, of the kind the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) desires and that we desire. We should feel more inclined to hand over these great powers to the President of the Board of Trade in the hope of bringing about lower tariffs if we knew that he worked in conjunction with the Advisory Committee. I submit, again, that it is a moderate Amendment, which does not rob the President of the Board of Trade of all his powers, but merely requires that he should take advice from the appropriate committee set up under this Bill, whose business it will be to make a survey of the whole industrial position.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Am I not right in thinking that the Government Amendment in line 23 has already been disposed of? This manuscript Amendment, as I heard it read out, comes in on line 20. I sub-myself to your Ruling, but I think it is not usual to go backwards in dealing with Amendments. Has there been a mistake?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is right. There has been a mistake on my part. I did not notice this manuscript Amendment until after the second Government Amendment had been disposed of. It was my fault, and I did
not propose to stop the discussion unless this point of Order was raised, but, as the matter has been brought to my attention, I must rule that we cannot proceed with the Amendment, and must go on to the next Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, at the end, to add the words:
An annual report as to the use made of and results obtained under this Part of the Act shall be rendered to Parliament.
4.0 p.m.
There is much in these proposals which is tentative and experimental, and I think there is a good deal of conflict of opinion as to the ultimate consequences of these retaliatory tariffs. Some hon. Members regard retaliatory tariffs as likely to precipitate economic war, while others think they will be a means of securing a reduction of tariffs in other nations. I believe that the mass of people in this country—I shall be perfectly frank —are anxious that tariffs should be given a trial. Inasmuch as that is so, and as we are all conscious of the fact that we are fighting what is, temporarily no doubt, not a losing battle but a lost battle, it behoves us, I think, in no obstructive sort of way, to make this Bill really workable, and to provide valuable data for governmental action in future. We want simply to resolve the question whether these retaliatory duties are good or bad, and it is a perfectly reasonable request which the Amendment makes, that an annual report as to the use of retaliatory tariffs shall be submitted to the House, because then we shall be not in the realm of doctrinaire theory, but in the realm of facts.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): I am obliged to the hon. Member for the very gracious way in which he moved this Amendment, and for the admission which he made that the spirit of the country was one favourable to the trying of tariffs. The hon. Member desires that a report should be laid before Parliament each year as to the results which this Clause has produced. The merits of this Clause are not to be measured by its use, but by its existence. We hold in reserve here the power to defend ourselves from discriminatory action. It is not we who propose to
take the discriminatory action, if I may clear up the misconception which appeared to exist under the previous Amendment. It is we who propose to take the power to defend ourselves from discriminatory action taken against us. It is the existence of that power which is of value, and therefore it will not be possible to estimate for the purposes of the report asked for the exact results of this Clause. I hope my hon. Friend will see that when we have this Clause upon the Statute Book, we shall be put in a position to take action which will prevent us from being badly treated by foreign countries. My hon. Friend will realise that a report could not be very voluminous or very satisfactory.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I do not think that the reply of the hon. Member is very convincing. While it may be, as he states, that no information will be available, and that there is nothing to record in an annual report, that is the best thing that could happen, but we are entitled to have a report in a case where discrimination has taken place, so that the House may be in a position to see how it has been dealt with by the Board of Trade, the Treasury, and the appropriate Departments. At Question Time to-day we heard that an hon. Member, who has been one of the most vigorous supporters of the Abnormal Importations Act and of this Bill, and is a strenuous supporter of Customs duties for this country, had suddenly discovered that the place where he happens to live and have his being has been affected by measures taken by a country against goods exported from this country, and he wants the Board of Trade to step in and try to persuade the Government of Holland to allow these goods to go there from the West Riding. Should the Board of Trade take any steps to deal with such a case, that is the sort of thing we want to see on paper, so that we can know exactly how it is dealt with. I shall be glad to know, where discrimination is used, whether it is dealt with in blind fury—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Does the general question arising out of this report come under an Amendment dealing with the question as to whether there should be an annual report?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I was not listening to the hon. Member. It is quite true that we must not discuss questions arising out of the report.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I understand that, and could you, Sir Dennis, have been at liberty to have listened for a moment or two, I do not think the hon. Member would have taken advantage to raise the point of Order.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Yes, I should.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I never intended to cover the whole range of the subject. What I endeavoured to raise was the question whether, if discrimination took place, we were entitled to know if that discrimination would be dealt with in the annual report, and whether it was dealt with by the blind fury of the President of the Board of Trade or the sweet reasonableness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is information to which we ought to be entitled. I think that the Amendment is a good one. We hope that there will be no occasion which will necessitate a report, but should discrimination take place, and there was retaliatory action under Clause 12, we ought to see what steps have been taken by the Government to deal with such a case.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I should like to resume the remaks which I was about to make on an Amendment when I was ruled out of order. We have treaties containing the most-favoured-nation-Clause with every important country in the world with the exception, I think, of France. As long as we are bound by those treaties, we cannot use Clause 12, as I understand it, except in respect of France. The question therefore arises whether His Majesty's Government are going in due course—if they do not answer me to-day, I shall understand why—to take steps to denounce the existing commercial treaties with a view to their replacement by treaties containing a, most-favoured-nation Clause of a. character which will make it possible for this country to use the powers given in this Clause. I hope that they will come to a favourable decision, because I do not think we can do what
is necessary as long as we are bound as we are to-day. In the meantime, we are not bound so far as France is concerned. France, it appears to me, has been discriminating against us, and that discrimination has not been retaliation for anything we have done. I think I am correct in saying that their discriminatory action against us took place at least two or three days before the first Order was made under the Abnormal Importations Act, and therefore in no sense was it retaliation against us, although many people suggested that it was.
If they discriminate against us not only by duties but also by prohibition, and if this Clause becomes law, I hope that, in the most friendly way, we shall point out to the Government of France that we have an Act containing this Section, and I do not see why its use should lead to any unfriendliness. They would know exactly where they are. It is part of the rules of the game, and in the future they would be less inclined to discriminate against us than in the past. I hope that the Government will be perfectly willing to use the instrument which, I am sure, this Committee will give it very cheerfully. No Clause meets with more general approval in this House than this Clause. Even the hosts on my right appear to approve of this Clause, however much they may be against the rest of the Bill, with the exception of one hon. Member from Edinburgh. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to say what use he intends to make of the powers we are so generously giving him.

Mr. ATTLEE: If anything were required to show why we should oppose this Clause, it is the exposition of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee. He is the embodiment of the war spirit. He wants to go in for a good old tariff war. I like his idea of what is friendly interchange of talk with other people! His idea is to go up to somebody and say, "Look here, I am going to bash you in the eye in a minute."

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I merely suggested that if a gentleman has bashed me in the eye, I am entitled to retaliate.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member is not limiting it to that. He wants to say that if any country in the world should offend him he is going to bash
it in the eye. The hon. Member cannot see himself, but if he had had a looking-glass in front of him, he would have realised that his words were heightened by the way he delivered them. We shall certainly vote against the Clause.

Mr. TURTON: Will the President of the Board of Trade tell me what is the position with regard to a country which attacks our trade by means of a subsidy or bonus on exportation? The House will remember that in 1929–30 there was considerable activity on the Continent in the way of this bonus or subsidy on exports which damaged our agricultural industry to a considerable extent. In May, 1930, Germany was subsidising her exports of oats by 4s. 6d. a cwt., and France at a similar time was subsidizing her exports of wheat by 4s. a cwt. I believe that economic warfare carried on in the future will be not only by the imposition of duties against this country, but by a hostile discrimination against this country by means of these subsidies on exports, and I would be very grateful if the President of the Board of Trade would tell me, first of all, whether this bonus or subsidy is covered by this Clause, and, if not, whether before the Report stage he will so amend the Clause as to provide against this discrimination.
I and some of my hon. Friends have an Amendment on the Order Paper which was not called, but even if it had been called, I appreciate that it would have made nonsense, and I apologise for the incomplete nature of that Amendment. In order to provide for this case, there would have to be an entire re-shaping of the whole Clause, but I do urge upon the President of the Board of Trade the importance of this question of subsidy or bonus on exports, especially to our agricultural industry. We want to provide a defence against economic warfare, and we do not want suddenly to find that this country has no trench helmets to protect itself against shrapnel.

Mr. REMER: I should like the Minister also to consider the matter which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and also the attitude of France in her Colonial Empire. In West Africa, Algiers, Madagascar and other places in the French Colonial Empire there exists what
amounts to a prohibition of British goods. This is a very great disadvantage to British traders in that part of the world. There is a great contrast in the treatment of French goods going into our Colonial Empire and British goods going into the French Colonial Empire. I should like to be allowed to mention one way in which they discriminate against British goods: When a British house has a branch office in any of those parts of the French Colonial Empire, employment is given solely with a view to discriminating against British trade. When the Minister is considering the case which was put before him just now by the hon Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I hope he will take into consideration the question of the French Colonial Empire also.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will very briefly reply to the points which have been raised. In the first place, referring to the export subsidies which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) described to the Committee: he will observe that this Clause is a discriminatory Clause. It is only to be put into operation where there is discrimination against this country. The subsidies which the hon. Gentleman has in mind are not subsidies which are used for discriminatory purposes against this country alone; they are subsidies which are given in respect of the whole of the export; for instance, of oats from Germany. That does not apply only to this country, but to the general export trade from Germany. It would not therefore arise within the limits of this Clause as there would be no discrimination that would justify action. I do not know of any subsidy which is given upon exports which does discriminate. That is not the way in which a country desirous of offensive action would ever think of proceeding, as it is a most expensive and the least effective way, and there has not been a single instance of discriminatory action of that kind against our trade that I am aware of.
The kind of thing that might arise is the working of a quota system which may operate unfairly against this country peculiarly, or it may be by twisting most-favoured-nation treatment. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman—I know it is so in the case of my hon. Friend the
Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—has many instances in his mind of most-favoured-nation treatment not being given to us, not by the definite withholding of what is called most-favoured-nation treatment, but by giving in the schedules of their treaty arrangements with other countries things which to us are perfectly immaterial, and working the most-favoured-nation treatment so as actually to give benefits in some direction which are withheld from us owing to the selection of articles. That sort of thing is difficult to deal with, and unless it were flagrant it would not be possible to take the necessary action.
The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) of discrimination against the person is not one which we had in mind in drafting the Bill. It is clear that if there were a case of discrimination against the nationals of this country and it were a case of withholding from them the right to trade, that would come very near to an infringement of most-favoured-nation treatment and we should have to consider the case as and when it arose. The great advantage of this Clause will be the fact that it exists, and that will be even more effective than it being put into use. I hope it will never be necessary. If it is not necessary to use it, then we shall know that we are receiving fair treatment all over the world. If it does become necessary, we must take action very promptly, and the provisions of this Clause will enable us so to act. I hope the mere fact that it is in existence and that for the first time we have a weapon of this kind in modern times, will be a sufficient deterrent.

Mr. TURTON: If there were a discriminatory subsidy on exports, would there be power in this Clause, or not, to act against a foreign country? I appreciate that Germany did not use discrimination against our exports, but I was rather looking into the future.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the discrimination were to the detriment of this country and actually did damage, we should certainly take it into account, but that has not arisen on any of the subsidies which have been given abroad.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Suppose that a subsidy is being given by a foreign
country on an article, of which 90 or 95 per cent,, or perhaps the whole of the export of the goods comes to this country; would that be considered as coming within the meaning of this Clause?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I doubt very much whether it would be necessary, and

it would not come within the meaning of this Clause. I think it would be sufficient to put up the tariff to whatever extent we thought expedient.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 337; Noes, 47.

Division No 81.]
AYES.
[4.21 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Conant, R. J. E.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Cooke, James D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Copeland, Ida
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Craven-Ellis, William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cross, R. H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth,Sutton)
Crossley, A. C.
Hornby, Frank


Atholl, Duchess of
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Horobin, Ian M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dalkeith, Earl of
Horsbrugh, Florence


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Denville, Alfred
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Dickie, John P.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Donner, P. W.
Hurd, Percy A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Doran, Edward
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bernays, Robert
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Drewe, Cedric
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Duggan, Hubert John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Borodale, Viscount.
Duncan, James A. L, (Kensington, N.)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Bossom, A. C.
Dunglass, Lord
Ker, J, Campbell


Boulton, W. W.
Eady, George H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Eden, Robert Anthony
Kimball, Lawrence


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Edge, Sir William
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Knebworth, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Knight, Holford


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Elmley, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V,
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leckie, J. A.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fermoy, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Buchan, John
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Levy, Thomas


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, Oswald


Burghley, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Liddall, Walter S.


Burnett, John George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Gibson, Charles Granville
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Goff, Sir Park
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goldie, Noel B.
Mabane, William


Carver, Major William H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cautley, Sir Henry S,
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McEwen, J. H. F.


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, John Hamilton


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Major Alan


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hamilton, Sir George (Word)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Christle, James Archibald
Hamilton, Sir R, W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Magnay, Thomas


Clarke, Frank
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Maitland, Adam


Clarry, Reginald George
Hanbury, Cecil
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Colville, Major David John
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Martin, Thomas B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Storey, Samuel


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, David D, (County Down)
Strauss, Edward A.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Millar, Sir James Duncan
Remer, John R,
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray T.


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Tate, Mavis Constance


Milne, Charles
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Templeton, William P.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rothschild, James A. de
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Morgan, Robert H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Train, John


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moss, Captain H. J.
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Munro, Patrick
Salmon, Major Isidore
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Salt, Edward W.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Savery, Samuel Servington
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


North, Captain Edward T.
Scone, Lord
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Nunn, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wells, Sydney Richard


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Weymouth, Viscount


Palmer, Francis Noel
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Patrick, Colin M.
Sinclair, Col. T, (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Pearson, William G.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Peat, Charles U.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, H. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Petherick, M.
Somerset, Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Powell, Lieut.-Col, Evelyn G. H.
Soper, Richard
Womersley, Walter James


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Purbrick, R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.



Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Ramsden, E.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Warrender.


Rankin, Robert
Stones, James



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
John, William
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John



Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James



Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Exception for goods imported with a view to re-exportation.)

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 12, line 22, to leave out the word "solely," and to insert instead thereof the word "mainly."
I move this Amendment largely in order to make certain that the position is as satisfactory as I hope it is—

Major NATHAN: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir Dennis, whether you would allow the discussion on the Amend-
ment which the hon. Member is now moving to include a discussion on the further Amendments standing in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself—In page 12, line 24, to leave out from the word "Kingdom" to the word "or" in line 26; and, in line 29, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall"—those Amendments being put formally when they are reached? That would give a discussion on the whole of this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: No. Such a general discussion would have to be only on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." As far as I understand the further Amendments to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, they are quite distinct from the Amendment which is now being moved, to which the discussion must now be confined.

Mr. WILLIAMS: There are certain trades carried on in London which involve the importation of goods from abroad for re-export. Those trades vary very much in their details. In some cases they may be merely transit trades; in others the goods come in, undergo some minor process, and then go out; or the goods may come in and undergo no process, but there may be a change of ownership during their passage through this country. The re-export trade is divided into many categories. This Clause as it stands would only apply if the goods were imported solely with a view to re-exportation. I am thinking of one industry from which I have received representations—not recently, but a long time ago—which handles Oriental carpets. The centre of the Oriental carpet trade, for sale purposes is in London, and a substantial number of people get their living in one way or another through the importation, sale in London, and subsequent re-exportation of these carpets, the product of certain Asiatic countries. Many of these carpets are sold in this country for use here, but, as far as I can make out, about three-quarters of those imported are subsequently exported again. Obviously, at the time of their importation, the people who import them do not know what is going to be the ultimate fate of any individual carpet—I am referring to carpets by way of illustration, but I have no doubt that a substantial number of other trades are in a similar position—and no one can say at the moment of importation that these carpets are being imported solely with a view to re-export.
I want to be satisfied that an industry like this will have the advantage of satisfactory drawback arrangements. I am not sufficiently skilled in Parliamentary drafting or in reading Acts of Parliament to know whether Clause 13 and the Second Schedule relate to the same subject, and I am rather wondering whether they do. Both of them relate to drawback, but they do not seem to relate
to the same kind of drawback. Clause 13 relates to drawback in respect of any duty, whether it be the 10 per cent, ad valorem duty, or an additional duty, or a combined duty; and in that case it is the Commissioners of Customs and Excise who can grant the drawback, or rather, make arrangements, in such circumstances, that the duty is not actually paid. It is not actually a drawback Clause. The Second Schedule relates to drawback where the goods have come in and have subsequently gone out, and the duty has to be repaid.
I raise this matter now, although it may be that the provisions of the Schedule will give me what I am trying to get by this proposal to substitute the word "mainly" for the word "solely." In the one case the drawback may be granted on the recommendation of the Committee, while in the other it may be granted by the commissioners. Perhaps the Minister who replies will explain exactly how this Clause is intended to work. I agree with the decision that the free port system should not be introduced in this country, but, that decision having been taken, it is essential that the arrangements for duty-free importation with a view to re-exportation should be satisfactory, or that, in those cases where drawback is involved, it should be granted. I am not certain whether, if the word "solely" is left in, we can have that system which is technically described, I believe, as constructive warehousing, whereby any ordinary trading establishment can be turned into a bonded warehouse of a somewhat unusual character. I hope that I have made this somewhat complicated matter reasonably clear.

Mr. MALLALIEU: There must be very few occasions when I shall be able to support an Amendment, or, indeed, any proposal on this subject, put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and I therefore hesitate to let this particular occasion pass without rising to support his Amendment. I should have preferred to see the word "solely" merely left out, without substituting any other word for it, but, since that Amendment is not down on the Paper—

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is, but there are two questions involved.

Mr. MALLALIEU: At Any rate, we are not at this moment dealing with that point, and, therefore, I would rather that the word "mainly" were substituted for "solely" than that the word "solely" should be left in. The particular instance that I have in mind is the importation of large lots of goods with a view to their exportation in small lots. This is a trade which brings considerable profit to certain parts of this Kingdom, particularly to London, and I am doubtful whether, under the wording of the Clause as it now stands, this trade could be continued. I should like either to have an assurance from the Minister that such a trade can be carried on under the existing words of the Clause, or to see this Amendment accepted. If that trade cannot be carried on in future, the profits of it will be lost, and such adverse balance of trade as there may be will be made even worse. Therefore, I support the Amendment.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I have had brought to my notice a case in the Midlands which bears out the arguments of my two hon. Friends who have just spoken. It is that of a very considerable firm of machinery makers in a large Midland city, who import from America machinery for making hosiery. This machinery comes to their works, they dismantle it, go through the bearings, attend to a certain number of gadgets, re-erect and paint it, and re-export it. I am told that these machines are very rarely bought by hosiery manufacturers in this country, although sometimes they are. It seems to me that, if the word "solely" remains in this Clause, it will be necessary for this firm to state, on importing each machine, whether that particular machine is to remain in this country or whether it is to be re-exported abroad. I am told that, largely because of the American patents which are involved in these hosiery machines, and because of the small number of them that are used in this country, it is impossible to hope that any manufacture of them could be economically set up here. The firm I have in mind, which has been operating for some 20 or 30 years, and others of similar standing, hold small stocks of these American machines, which are dismantled and re-erected. They come into this country as hosiery machines, they go out as hosiery machines, and, therefore,
they undoubtedly come under the general terms of this Measure; and if, as I hope will be the case, the Government will say that they are prepared to accept the word "mainly" instead of "solely," they will be rendering great assistance to this small but important number of machinery makers in the Midlands.

Mr. GIBSON: I hope that the. Government will give this Amendment favourable consideration. In the industry with which I am connected, there is a side-line in connection with which there are brought into this country every year from India very large numbers of goatskins and sheepskins. These go to the sales in London, which is the selling market of the whole world for this commodity, and the people in London cannot know the destination of these goods until they are actually sold. The great majority of them go to Germany, but the destination is not known until the sale is completed. Therefore, it seems to me that, if the word "solely" remains in this Clause, there will be a danger of this entrepot trade being lost to this country, with all the attendant financial benefits to our merchants in the City of London. For many years London has been the market of the world for the sale of this commodity, which comes entirely from India.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I desire to join in the appeal which has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include this Amendment in the Clause. In the City of Liverpool, from which I come and where my business is, I come across many cases where there would be a very adverse effect, where traders would be hit, and where the trade of the port would be hit, if this Clause were passed in its original form. I do not like the word "mainly," but I think it will probably upset trade a little less than the word "solely." Only yesterday I came across a branch of trade which would be very seriously hampered indeed if the Clause remained in its present form, and that is the importation of fruit. Hon. Members may not be aware of the exact procedure that takes place in such cases. The fruit is brought into a port, and it is impossible for the importer to say whether it is to be used solely or mainly in this country or whether it is to be exported. That cannot be said until the fruit has been put up to auction and it will mean very great difficulty for traders of that character in being able to
carry on their business properly. They will have to look up a great deal of capital and to have much larger staffs. I beg the President of the Board of Trade to accept this Amendment if it is impossible to delete the word "solely" altogether.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: This Amendments shows the sort of difficulty into which traiffs bring everybody. The hon. Member opposite at one moment is rejoicing because Yorkshire is being protected, the next he is protesting because Holland is doing the same as we are, and now he is up in arms because a perfectly ordinary provision is put in the Bill which goes with any tariff procedure and which is necessary if the Bill is to be made to work. He wants the best of at least three worlds and he will want the best of some more by the time we come to the Schedules in order to get specific exemption or inclusion for vested interests. It does not matter to us whether it is "mainly" or "solely," except that "mainly" seems to mean nothing. I do not know how anyone will decide whether it is mainly with a view to exportation, but that is not our funeral.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The hon. and learned Gentleman truly says that this is not his funeral. His funeral has already taken place. We are now dealing with the second stage—resurgam for British trade and industry generally. The substitution of the word "mainly" for "solely" would not have the effect which the Mover and Seconder think it would have. Furthermore, it would tend to introduce an element of administrative impossibility into the proposals which the Government are now commending to the Committee. We want to deal with the entrepot trade under conditions which will allow the re-exportation of goods and will allow goods intended for re-export after transit through the United Kingdom to be imported free of duty. That is what the Clause deals with—the importation of goods free of duty. In allowing that privilege, we must guard against leakage in the ways which have been familiar to traders for many years. They have been familiar for many years in the main range of dutiable articles, and familiar for the last 17 years in the case of articles which have been imported subject to one or other of the
revenue duties which have been placed upon them. In so far as goods intended for re-export are not immediately reshipped, they can be placed in bonded warehouses free of duty and reshipped at a later date, or they can be retained for home consumption on payment of duty.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) brought up the case of fruit. Fruit will not be carried into the interior of the country and then carried out again to the Continent. The fruit market will take place at, or as near as possible to, the quayside, and it should be possible to deal with it under the provisions of the Bill. It will not be necessary to bring in that fruit, have it pay duty and subsequently re-export it to the Continent, so that all that great range of trade which can be carried on through the use of the well-known facilities will not be injured by the Clause nor in any way helped by the Amendment. When the Customs desire to admit free of duty goods intended to undergo a process, the process must not change the form or character of the goods. Again, that is a well-understood term of art which has been operated on for many years. It is, however, necessary that these goods should be intended for re-exportation, and it would be impossible to allow a system under which casual decisions were taken afterwards as to whether or not the goods were to be sold in this country or were to be exported. It would mean pursuit by the Customs officials through every channel of trade of articles for sale which could not be identified except by the most meticulous survey. Therefore, the provisions against leakage must involve the provisions of this Clause, that goods are being imported solely with a view to re-exportation. In the case of Oriental carpets, obviously the dealers would not clear from the warehouse a great number of carpets and pay duty on them if they were intending only to sell a small proportion of them here. The market would be held under bonded facilities and only a portion of the carpets would be cleared.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: These carpets are not mass-production articles. Each carpet has a separate individuality.

Major ELLIOT: I am myself an admirer of those carpets, and I admit
that each has as much individuality as a, picture. In spite of that, however, the dealer will not clear from bond a great quantity of articles which he does not see his way to dispose of. He will himself decide whether he will clear certain articles from bond or not. If they remain in bond, they will not be subject, to duty. If they are taken out, they will. It would be impossible to work a scheme by which the Customs, or anyone else, followed a single carpet throughout all the shops of the country in order to allow it finally to pass out of the country without having paid duty.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in the case of fruit sold by auction, some for home consumption and some for foreign, no duty will be payable and that the goods will evade duty in some way. I am not quite clear how that will occur. Surely they will have to be cleared.

Major ELLIOT: In the case of articles which are not going into the bonded warehouses, there will be an auction with transhipment facilities. This fruit is by hypothesis going out again to the Continent on a ship. After clearance there is a long-established practice, under which goods intended for immediate re-exportation are allowed at present to be removed under bond from an import to an export ship, whether in the same port or at another port, and the Customs formalities are reduced to a minimum. There are facilities for re-packing and other operations in the transhipment sheds, and it would be possible to cover all the operations the hon. Member has in mind under these facilities, which are already granted and which it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: It is very pleasing in some ways to see the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) so anxious about these merchants who deal in Oriental carpets. He will be probably on the carpet with the headquarters of the Conservative party. We have the Axminster and the Wilton carpet trades very greatly depressed, with men out of employment, and yet we have a man who has been on the platform for the last 15
or 20 years advocating the interests of people who are selling Oriental carpets.

The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise here—whether carpets should be taxed or not.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I simply wanted to point this out because, once this duty is placed on Oriental carpets, you have to make arrangements for it. That is the appeal the hon. Member has been making. Probably there will be a circular from our party pointing out the inconsistency of the Tory party and the propagandists.

Sir P. HARRIS: I want to support the speech of the Financial Secretary to some extent. I have had many years experience of trade in London. I think there has been a certain confusion of thought between goods in bond and goods that ought to get a drawback. I want to see greater elaboration when we come to the drawback Schedules. I am not satisfied at present with the provision for drawbacks.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet must discuss that when we come to the question of drawbacks and not on this Amendment.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am merely suggesting that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is trying to do the right thing in the wrong way. The right way is when we come to the Schedules. The whole thing depends on whether there is adequate provision for bonded warehouses. I do not think there can be. I do not think it is realised how the immense extension of the amount of goods that are going to be taxable will cram our bonded warehouses to bursting. That is an inevitable result of rushing a tariff through in five days. If the hon. Member finds that the carpet trade is ruined, that is his fault. He will not get over it by suggesting that they should be on the free list. The proper way is to make full provision for drawbacks.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government are prepared to introduce the system known as constructive warehouses, whereby warehouses which are not normally bonded warehouses can be
used for the purpose? If I can get an assurance on that point, I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My hon. Friend is, apparently, not aware that the system is in operation now.

5.0 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I wish to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member or South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) with reference to fruit, vegetables and other perishable articles. I understand the position to be that certain cases of vegetables and fruit and the like are unloaded, taken to the warehouse, and that there the importer makes his decision as to which, if any, shall be re-exported. The warehouse is not a bonded warehouse. The second point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that fruit and vegetables are unloaded at the Port of London and that great quantities are then taken to the London Fruit Exchange in Spitalfields, which is outside the authority of the Port of London. At the London Fruit Exchange the goods are sold at auction, and whether they are to be retained in this country or re-exported, depends upon the nature and quality of the goods, the season during which they are sold, and the persons buying the goods at auction. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in reference, at all events, to fruit and vegetables at the ports, is one which is borne out by the actual practice existing at the present time?

Captain BARTON: There are two points upon which, I think, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not stated the case properly. I understand that the Customs will demand the duty on every cargo of fruit and vegetables which comes into the country and will not let the cargo go from the quayside until the duty is paid in full. More than that, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise informed the constituents from whom I made inquiries that they would require that a deposit in cash should be paid by them to cover the value of the dues on the goods. In one particular case it was said that as much as £2,000 would be required to be deposited against the Customs dues. They would not take the
Customs dues out of the deposit, but would still require the dues to be paid by the importer either in cash or by certifying cheque before the cargo was released from the quayside. Duty is actually being demanded and charged by the Commissioners before the importer is entitled, or allowed, to handle the goods.
It may be that a, portion of the goods in all probability is required for re-export, but the importer cannot possibly tell, until he has had a chance of breaking bulk and testing samples to see if they come up to specifications, whether the fruit is in a sufficiently sound condition to stand the journey out, not only to Continental ports, but in many cases to Scandinavia and the Baltic. May I instance grapes, which are exported in large quantities. The stem of the grape has to be examined by the importer very carefully to enable him to satisfy himself that with regard to dryness and strength generally it will be able to stand a journey without the grape coming away from the stem by the time it arrives at its destination. That can only be done when the importer has had an opportunity of examining the fruit inside the warehouse. At the present time the importers of Hull, for whom I speak particularly, have absolutely no facilities for bonded warehousing at all. They have to take the fruit into their own warehouses where they make their examinations. I suggest, therefore, that some definite undertaking should be given, if the statement of fact as given to me is correct, that there will be special facilities afforded the fruit importer so as not to handicap him in regard to the re-export trade. It is not an inconsiderable trade, particularly as it furnishes a considerable percentage of the total re-export trade from the United Kingdom. If I can have that assurance from the Government, I shall be content, but it seems to me that at present every handicap is being put in the way of fruit importers in the desire to carry out the provisions of the Board of Trade.

Major ELLIOT: I think that it is a little hard on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Captain Barton) to say that every handicap is being put in the way of the trade.

Captain BARTON: I meant by the Commissioners.

Major ELLIOT: I take full responsibility for every action of the Commissioners. The Commissioners do not act apart from the right hon. Gentleman and myself and everything which touches my brother touches the Tavannes in this case. The action of the Commissioners is the action of those instructed to carry out the orders of this House. You cannot separate them from action in this House, and the action of the Minister responsible to this House. The whole question hinges on the word "immediately." This is the case of perishable goods. We are more particularly being asked to deal with the case of perishable goods here because it is admitted that all goods not perishable which are dutiable must in some way be segregated or an interminable amount of work in connection with those goods will need to be carried out. But in the case of goods which are to be used at a very early date and which are for immediate re-exportation—and I take it that fruit is peculiarly goods designed for re-exportation—every possible facility will be given in respect of perishables for the breaking of bulk and for inspection by the importer in question because there you are dealing with something which is its own check. The practice has already been extended and will still further be extended in order to be used as much as possible for the good of the trade of this country.
There is no desire to hamper the trade of this country and particularly transhipment, but traders cannot have it both ways. If you are going to have a duty, you must take the rough with the smooth. It is necessary for the Committee to recognise and to face up to the fact; no useful purpose is to be served by burking it. We shall do our utmost in the future as in the past to ensure that the goods which are imported for transhipment purposes are safeguarded. The words say:
the commissioners may, subject to such conditions as they think fit to impose for securing the re-exportation of the goods.
Subject to those words, trade will be allowed to flow as much as possible. It does not mean that the goods should be put into bonded warehouse like wines and spirits. The commissioners are reasonable people and will operate the Clause in a reasonable fashion. They will operate it with a view to securing the
re-exportation of the goods in the case of perishable goods and it will not be as difficult as it may appear. I think that with this assurance it may be possible for my hon. Friend not to proceed further with the Amendment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, to leave out from the word "Kingdom," to the word "or," in line 26.
The words which I move to leave out are
which will not change the form or character of the goods.
It is clear that there must often be articles which are not suitable for re-export until they have to a great extent changed their character. There is only one point which I hope the Minister will meet. What is to happen under the Clause as it stands in the case where yarns are imported into this country and then spun into cloth. I represent a constituency in which the flax industry plays a very important part, and I know that there is a good deal of apprehension in that industry, because it is felt that under the Clause as it stands there will be a tax upon their raw material, and that the manufacturers in the industry will be penalised. This difficulty has already arisen in another industry under the Abnormal Importations Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) pointed out the other day that it has happened in the West Riding of Yorkshire where a duty has been imposed upon certain classes of worsted yarns coming, from Belgium. It is a form of yarn not made in this country, and the manufacturers of certain fabrics who need that kind of yarn have been penalised very heavily by the 30 per cent. duty upon the yarn. It would be unfortunate, surely, if we were to extend that form of damage to other industries, such as the flax industry. As the Clause stands, it simply means that in the case of yarns woven into any form of cloth it would be a tax upon the process of manufacture in this country. The Amendment is one which would improve the Clause and one which the Government might very well accept.

Major ELLIOT: There may be a little uneasiness on the part of hon. Members above the Gangway in regard to the hearty co-operation of hon. Members below the Gangway, who admittedly oppose the principles of the Bill. This Amendment would strike a blow at the Bill. I do not complain of that. It would enormously increase the exemptions given, and would either involve the country in a horde of officials, such as have never been conceived of in connection with the Bill, or would mean that the Bill would have to be washed out as impracticable. For many years traders in this country have been accustomed to operating under the provision regarding goods not altered in form or character by undergoing a process abroad. It would be extremely difficult to administer the Act if the Amendment were carried. Take the case of a piece of wood which is put into a cabinet, or take some small ingredient that is used in a composite article. How is it possible to believe that that ingredient can be detected by the Customs officers amongst all the other ingredients which make up the composite article.
We are told that yarn goods are exported to the Continent, undergo a process there and are reimported into this country. That system is not new. It has been considered for many years past and it has always been held that where the goods are altered in form and character they become in fact foreign goods and as such are liable to tax. It is not possible to alter that. Suppose a man made a machine abroad, and said he could prove that in that machine he had used a steel ingot which was purchased by him in this country. Suppose he said: "This machine was made out of the steel ingot that I bought from a British steel maker 18 months ago. How could we disprove that? Should we have to follow the steel ingot and sit on the top of it, so to speak, in the foreign works to ensure that that steel ingot and none other was transformed into that particular piece of machinery? The thing is administratively impossible. Take the case of textiles. A man might take a textile fabric to the Customs officer and say: "This textile fabric has been produced out of material which we had previously purchased in Great Britain." How are we to disprove that, unless we trace these articles through their various pro-
cesses until they come back again? If the goods are not altered in form and character we can recognise them, but if they are altered we cannot recognise them. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 29, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
I am hopeful that this small verbal Amendment may be accepted. It deals with a provision under which the Commissioners may subject to conditions that they may think fit to impose, allow goods for re-export to be imported free of duty. The Amendment seeks to make that a certainty. I have tried to discover why the word "may" is used. I cannot believe that it is used in order that the Commissioners may exercise their discretion as to whether it is desirable that goods shall be brought into this country for re-export, because I feel certain that it is common ground that in so far as our re-export trade can be maintained and developed, that should be done. We feel that it is important also to the traders that they should have certainty in regard to this matter. The word "may" standing where it does introduces an element of uncertainty into, commercial transactions. If the trader is contemplating a contract he will be unable, if I read the Clause aright, to know beforehand whether he will be allowed to bring his goods into this country or not. Therefore, I think it will be far better if instead of the Commissioners having apparently the power, whether that is the intention or not—

Major ELLIOT: It may perhaps shorten discussion if I say that as the result of legal ruling given in regard to public departments the word "may" in this connection is interpreted to mean "shall." When the hon. Member has had further experience of our Debates he will realise how often this question comes up. It is the definite opinion of the Department that it is the duty of the Commissioners to exercise the powers conferred on them by this Clause. The word "may" is not permissive but imperative. If we were to accept the Amendment, to strike out the word "may" and insert the word "shall," we
should be casting doubt upon the word "may" where it appears in other Clauses. There would be danger in doing that. It will be the duty of the Commissioners and it will be imperative upon them to exercise their powers under the Clause. It is the opinion of the Law Officers that in this case there is a binding mandate upon the Commissioners. Perhaps after that explanation it will be possible for the hon. Member not to press forward his Amendment.

Mr. MABANE: The Financial Secretary has completely met the point that I and my hon. Friends had in mind, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. CLAYTON: I beg to move in page 12, line 32, at the end, to add the words:
For the purposes of this section goods shall be deemed to be imported solely with a view to the re-exportation thereof if the goods are intended for re-exportation at or before or within seven days (excluding Sundays and holidays) after the time of the report of the ship at the Customs House.
The purpose of the Amendment is to claim for the importers of goods a period of grace during which it shall be possible for them to deal with the re-exportation of goods without having to put them into bond. Clause 13 does not protect goods of this nature, (1) goods which after leaving a foreign port for a United Kingdom port are sold on the high seas before reaching the United Kingdom port, (2) goods which after being landed in a United Kingdom port are sold ex-quay and (3) goods which on reaching a United Kingdom port are taken to bonded warehouses and afterwards re-exported. None of these cases is covered by the Clause. The Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, for whom I am moving the Amendment, are anxious to protect the entrepot trade in their respective ports.

Major ELLIOT: I think the words of the Amendment would actually restrict the facilities which are already in operation with regard to transhipment, bond, and re-exportation. There is no limitation to seven days now. Goods may remain in transhipment sheds for longer periods than seven days, and the periods can be extended as required. In regard to bonded warehouses which hold imported goods of which the importer does
not know the destination, those goods can remain in the bonded warehouses indefinitely. Therefore, on the grounds that the proposed Amendment would restrict the facilities for re-exportation and would limit the time, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

Dr. CLAYTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part, of the Bill."

Major NATHAN: In replying to one of the earlier Amendments on this Clause the Financial Secretary made a very significant statement. He informed the Committee that if we are to have a duty we must take the rough with the smooth. It is a question in regard to these matters whether the rough may not be too rough to compensate for what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the smooth. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated the importance to this country of the entrepot trade. In the year 1931, which was a year of crisis and reduced commerce, the entrepot trade turnover was not less than £64,000,000. Normally, it is about £100,000,000. That trade will be seriously affected by the provisions which the Committee is considering to-day.

The CHAIRMAN: Surely not under the provisions of this Clause.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should like to say a few words with regard to the meaning of the word "may." I had not the opportunity of doing so because the Amendment was withdrawn. I would ask the Financial Secretary to look at this question again. Whichever view is taken of the meaning of the word "may," I am certain that as it stands at present in the Clause, two views are quite open to be taken. It is not certain one way or the other. It is exactly the type of word that provokes litigation. Although that may be profitable for some people, I am sure the Financial Secretary does not desire to do anything so stupid as to increase their profits. I should have thought that in this particular provision where the Commissioners are given powers to make conditions such as they think fit to impose, it might well have been said that the word "may" gives
them the right either to allow these goods to be imported free or not, as they may decide. If it is meant that they must allow the goods to be so imported, on conditions, I suggest that it might be made quite clear that that is what is intended.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Whatever may be the opinion of the more or less legal authority we have just heard, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), it seems to me that the Commissioners can do exactly what they like, because they make the conditions, as is laid down in the clause. It does not matter whether or not this tiny technical legal point is met or not, and it seems to me that it is a waste of time further to discuss it.

Mr. GROVES: On a point of Order. Was not the hon. Member offensive when he referred to the "more or less legal authority"? I do not call it gentlemanly.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. and learned Member took any exception to it.

5.30 p.m.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Great anxiety has been felt by many people as to the effect of this Clause on certain of our ports, but from what the Financial Secretary has said it is now quite clear that there need be no more anxiety on the part of those engaged in these particular areas. The fear was that the Clause did not give power to the Commissioners to set aside areas for this particular class of goods, but I understand that the Commissioners have full power to make whatever arrangements are necessary. The Government, I am sure, are fully alive to the needs of our trade in these matters and, while certain arrangements will have to be made, as long as they are reasonable and fit in with the scheme the traders at our ports can be reassured. The real way to help trade is to take a broad view of this question and to fit in as far as possible with the present system. I think it is perfectly clear now that there need be no anxiety in our shipping ports that there will be any unnecessary disturbance in the handling of goods.

Major NATHAN: When you called me to order just now, Mr. Chairman, I think you must have done so believing that I
was about to embark on some lengthy remarks as to the effect of this Clause on our entrepot trade. That is not my intention. My object is to point out that the provisions of this Clause are unsatisfactory and unworkable. I have heard with great respect the statement made by the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. S. Allen), but I must point out that within the last few days some of the great merchant firms in the City of London engaged in this business have placed before me in detail some of the difficulties with which they consider they will be confronted under the provisions of this Clause. They point out what is perhaps not commonly recognised, that less than one-third of the goods imported for re-exportation are exported without breaking bulk, and that at present there is not sufficient accommodation for dealing with the two-thirds of the imports which require not only the bulk to be broken but to be broken in very small parcels indeed.
Let me give a practical illustration from the case of one of the great merchant firms of the City of London. They are not only a firm of considerable importance in London doing a large business in this country, but they have factories in various parts of the world, in Czechoslovakia, France, Austria and Italy, and it has been their practice to collect in London parcels of goods from each of these quarters and assemble them here into consignments. Under the provisions of this Clause that practice will be wholly impossible or only possible at a greatly enhanced expense, because if the goods are to be placed in bonded warehouses the quantities derived from any part of the world may be so insignificant as to make it not worth their while to employ a staff to deal with these particular goods. The result will be to increase the price of the goods and deprive this country of its markets, or merchants will not think it is worth while to do this business at all, in which case inward and outward freights will be lost, to say nothing of employment. What actually happens at the moment is that these goods come from various parts of the world and can be assembled in a warehouse. They may be very small quantities from any particular country, but as under this Bill they have to be kept in bonded warehouses—

Major ELLIOT: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is wrong. They do not have to be kept in bond but
subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose for securing the re-exportation of the goods.
In the case of goods such as the hon. and gallant Member is describing it is clear that it would be unreasonable to say that they should be put in bonded warehouses; and the Commissioners would not propose it.

Major NATHAN: The objection to this Clause is that there is no precision as to the conditions which will be imposed; that is a matter left entirely to the Commissioners. As a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion, this Clause is causing the utmost apprehension amongst the great merchant firms of the City of London. They realise that if we are to have such a Bill as this it is right to include some Clause which will stop a leakage, but they say that this Clause imposes disabilities which are unnecessary and makes the "rough" a great deal rougher than it might otherwise be. Take the case of articles which undergo a change in the form or character of the goods. There are all sorts of articles coming into this country which are components of other articles, which must necessarily alter their form and character and become unrecognisable. Take the electrical industry.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now repeating what we have discussed already.

Mr. JANNER: It appears to me that on Report the Financial Secretary will have to seriously consider the question as to whether the word "may" should he altered—

The CHAIRMAN: When the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) called attention to this matter he was quite justified, but the hon. Member is not in order in putting forward the argument as to whether the word should be "may" or "shall" at this stage. That question has been decided.

Mr. NUNN: I only intervene because the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) as to the parlous position of those engaged in the entrepot trade of this country have almost moved me to
tears. I would like to say, and I speak with a little authority because I spent many years administering a Customs department where the whole of the tariff was an ad valorem tariff on practically everything corning into the country, that when we are dealing with the Customs department which will have to operate this Bill we are dealing with the finest department in the world. When we hear all these fears expressed as to the way in which it will work this Clause we must remember that the Customs people are extremely sensible and considerate persons. There is not a single member of any business or trade who does not realise how earnestly they strive to make the regulations press as lightly as possible on the commercial community. The hon. and gallant Member need not be afraid because the Customs department is given ample powers; they will exercise them with the greatest possible consideration.

CLAUSE 14.—(Provision as to re-importation of a class or description liable to duty under Act.)

Mr. GIBSON: I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, after the word "changed," to insert the words:
and providing the process is one that cannot be satisfactorily carried out in this country.
This is a very important Clause, and I make no apology for moving this Amendment. I desire to look after the interests of our own people. If the late Solicitor-General differs from me in that respect then we cannot go into the same Lobby. While I like to see other countries prospering I consider that my first duty is to look after our own people. What is the meaning of the words in this Clause:
But that their form or character has not been changed.
This may be perfectly clear to the legal mind but it is not clear to the lay mind. The Financial Secretary on the Second Reading suggested that the process of printing and dyeing cloth might not necessarily mean that the cloth had changed its character, but I should like to know how far the Customs officials are to go, or will go, in exercising their discretionary powers as to whether goods have been subjected to a process which had changed their form and character
when re-imported into this country. Who is to decide this question? At the same time I consider that last week, when the Financial Secretary spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, he did not quite faithfully interpret this Clause. I say that in no carping spirit. If I refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 15th February I find that the Financial Secretary said:
In the case of imports for re-export there are provisions in Clauses 13 and 14 so that goods may be imported either for re-export or exported with a view to free re-importation so long as the process which the goods undergo does not change the form and character of the goods.
In my reading of Clause 14 it appears to me, as a layman, quite clear that the statement made by the Financial Secretary does not quite coincide with the statement in paragraph (b) of the Clause. That paragraph definitely states that the goods, if they have been abroad and subjected to a process and then have come back to this country, if they have not changed their former character, shall pay a duty on the increased value of the goods to the extent of the cost of the process. On the other hand the Financial Secretary stated that when these goods came back, if the process had not changed the character of the goods, they could come back free. The Clause appears to be perfectly clear and to show that the goods will have to pay duty and will not come back free. The Financial Secretary said in the same speech:
If the printing or dyeing does not change the form or character of the goods which have been exported, they will not be subject to the duty when re-introduced into this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1932; col. 1300, Vol. 261.]
Again I would refer to paragraph (b) of the Clause, which state that the goods shall 'be chargeable to duty in respect of the increased value resulting from the processing of the goods. In my view there are two reasons for the exporting and re-importing of goods. I cannot conceive that anyone would export any goods for processing in a foreign country except for one of those two reasons. The first would be that the processing could not possibly be done in this country; and the second would be that they could be processed in that foreign country at a lower cost than in this country. It is because of the latter reason that I wish to submit this
Amendment. There will be in the minds of many hon. Members who are connected with various industries throughout the country many cases where goods can be processed in a foreign country and cannot be processed here. I give my own industry simply as an example. There is a type of leather which is manufactured here to a certain point but cannot be manufactured beyond that point. That particular leather is in the main manufactured in Germany, in Canada, and in the United States. I refer to the patent leather which goes into the manufacture of the uppers of boots and shoes. No matter what steps we have taken in trying to make patent leather in this country, so far it has never been successfully manufactured, for the simple reason that we have so much humidity in our atmosphere and not the dry atmosphere of the countries I have mentioned.
We ought not to stand in the way of anyone in this country desiring to send these things out to Germany or the United States to be processed in this particular manner when we cannot process them in this country. On many occasions I have exported goods to the United States, sent them 3,000 miles, brought them back 3,000 miles and sold them in this country. I would not have done that if I could have got the process carried out here. That is a case in point. Then there is the reason I have mentioned, affecting goods which are sent to be processed in a foreign country because the wages and conditions of labour in that foreign country are inferior to those of this country. I think we ought not to offer the slightest encouragement to the exporting of goods to a foreign country to be processed there and brought back here simply because in that foreign country the standard rate of wages and the conditions of life are worse than those in this country.
In connection with my own industry I notice that hides and certain skins are on the free list. In the past certain boot manufacturers have bought hides from various parts of the world, and they have sent them to Germany and Czechoslovakia, and have had them made dressed into leather, and then that leather has been brought to this country and manufactured into boots and shoes,
and in some cases sold in the exporters' own retail stores. These people have received payment for the boots and shoes from their fellow-countrymen, but they have not been prepared to pay their fellow-countrymen for the cost of the dressing. Under the Bill what will happen will be that the hides and skins will not go direct to Czechoslovakia and Germany, because if they did, after they had been processed, they would come here and pay the full 10 per cent. on the full value of the goods; but they will come here, being free of entry into this country, and then the boot manufacturer or the merchant will send his goods from this country to Germany and Czechoslovakia, and just have them processed, because they can be processed without losing their identity.
Let us take, as a hypothetical figure, the value of the hide at 5d. per foot, and assume that the figure paid in Germany is 2½d. per foot for the process. It would mean that the duty would be payable only on the 2½d. when the goods were re-imported, whereas if the hides were bought on the foreign market and shipped direct to Germany and not to this country, the duty of 10 per cent. would be payable on the 5d. and the 2½d., that is 7½d. Therefore, the English merchant, or whoever he might be, who was sending his goods through our markets, getting the hides free here and then having them processed on the Continent, would only be paying 3⅓ per cent. on the total value of the goods, because he would be only paying 10 per cent. on the 2½d. When goods can he satisfactorily manufactured and processed in this country, I say it is up to hon. Members to stand by their own people for the safeguarding of the industries and employment of their own people, wherever we can satisfactorily carry out that work. It is for these reasons, amongst others, that I move the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment, because it is one which could not be satisfactorily worked in this country. The effect of the Amendment would be that goods which had been subjected to a process abroad, which had not changed their form or character, nevertheless would have to be subject to full duty on re-importation into this country, unless
they could not be satisfactorily provided in this country. That would throw on the Customs officials the onus of showing whether the goods could or could not be produced here, and that is an impossible task to put on the Customs. They could not possess the knowledge to carry it out. Therefore the scheme is not practicable. But by way of consolation to my hon. Friend I would say that at any rate the Bill is going to make it more difficult to get processed abroad goods which could be processed in this country, because in future the importer who has sent goods abroad to be processed will not only have to pay the cost of processing abroad but also a duty on the cost of the processing.

Mr. REMER: I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to that decision. Last week, when travelling in the train on my way back from the North, I met a very prominent manufacturer of hides, and he told me that this very process which my hon. Friend has mentioned, in regard to patent leather, was to be undertaken by him. He said that his works were going to produce that particular patent leather, and that before Christmas of next year he hoped to be able to take that trade away from the Germans and to bring it to this country. That brings me to my main reason for rising. One can never be certain, when protection has been given to an industry, how the British people will get over difficulties and enable a process to be done in this country instead of abroad. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the overwhelming difficulty of Customs officials being able to decide whether work can be done in this country or not. Only yesterday a question arose as to some goods under the Abnormal Importations Act. The question referred to silk embroidery on cotton, and there was the difficulty of deciding whether the process could be done in this country or not. It is work which can be done and is being done in this country, and it was only because the merchants in this country had gone to the Customs officials and told them that the work could not be done here that misapprehension arose on that particular point. This Clause of the Bill is going to be of very great value to many people in this country, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 15.—(Value of goods for purpose of Act.)

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 13, line 28, after the word "importation," to insert the words:
without taking into account in the calculation of such price.
6.0 p.m.
If the wording of this Amendment is not perfect I hope that the principle which it contains will receive consideration. The principle which I am endeavouring to raise is that the value of imported goods for the purposes of the Act should be taken to be the home consumption price or the invoice price f.o.b. as opposed to the c.i.f. price. I gathered from the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill that if the Government had not foresen certain difficulties, they would have presented this Clause in the form which I now ask the Committee to support. May I remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of his words:
Clause 15 of the general Clauses deals with the value of goods for the purposes of this Act,' and the value of goods for the purposes of the Act is being taken as the value here, and not the value there.
That is very homely language, and makes quite clear, I think, what he means, though it is rather vague. He went on to say:
That differs from the practice of the United States and other countries where the value of goods is taken in the country of origin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1932; col. 1301, Vol. 261.]
I want the Committee and the Government to adopt the policy which experience has proved to be the best and the most practicable and, on the whole, the fairest to industry and trade. What I propose here is the practice in the United States and in other countries which have experience of tariffs. This is not merely a question of the duties being levied both on the value of the commodity itself and also on the freight and insurance and other costs, but it raises also the very serious question of taxing the cheaper commodity more than the dearer commodity. The cheaper the article the higher the percentage of freight in its value. If the articles are of the same bulk
the freight is the same on the lower-priced article as it is on the more expensive article. We had many discussions on that point during the consideration of the Safeguarding Duties in reference to earthenware and other articles, and it was then pointed out that the bulkier the goods were the higher the freight.
There is another and, perhaps, more serious aspect of the question. It is our pride that our shipping is an integral part of our industry, and nobody knows that better than the President of the Board of Trade. Therefore, we want to encourage goods to come from the four quarters of the globe and the further a commodity has to come, the larger the part played by freight in its cost. If goods merely come across the Channel, in a Channel steamer, the freight is a small factor, but if they come in British steamers from South America, China, and other far away countries, the cost of freight plays a much greater part in the value. Therefore, the method proposed in the Clause of levying the duty, is tantamount to a premium to the countries which are adjacent to us, as opposed to the countries which are far away. When we come to raw materials like fibre and esparto grass, and articles such as linseed cake meal, cotton seed meal and so forth, freight plays a very great part in the prices of these commodities as landed in our ports. The Government proposes to levy this duty not on the goods only but on the ships which carry the goods. That is what the proposal amounts to, if you levy a duty on the freight. In cases of goods carried a great distance the freight may come to something like the same as the value of the goods. A duty of 10 per cent. sounds modest when levied on the article itself but if the freight is to be included, then on the original value of the goods, the 10 per cent. may become 20 per cent. or 30 per cent.
There would be no serious difficulty in giving effect to the Amendment. Long experience has proved it possible to levy a duty on the invoice value. It may be that cases of evasion would arise, but with a highly organised Consular service it should be possible to detect such cases. In any case, I ask the Government, is it wise, in introducing a scheme of this kind for the first time to jeopardise its success and injure our shipping merely
because there may be some isolated examples of evasion, by collusion between exporter and importer? The practice which is suggested in the Amendment, goes on all over the world. Our Dominions levy their duties on the home consumption price and I do not think there is any protected country which does not follow that practice. At a time like the present when the shipping trade is experiencing a very hard time this question should be seriously considered. One of the main reasons for the so-called adverse trade balance is the decrease in the amount of goods carried in British ships and from that standpoint it is unwise to introduce a system of levying taxation both on goods and on freight insurance and other charges. I would also remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have a fairly big part in effecting insurances for the carriage of goods. Lloyds does the insurance for a great part of the carrying trade of the world and this proposal is not going to make the insurance of cargoes any easier.
There is an unanswerable case for the Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman should, at any rate, give due consideration to the possibility of accepting it. I do not know if, in calculating the amount of revenue—which has never been estimated by the way—it is to be assumed that the duty is going to be levied on the freight as well as the goods. But, as I understand it, the main purpose of the Bill is to restore the balance of trade and the wrong way of doing so is by levying this new duty on costs, insurance and freight as well as on the original value of the goods.

Major ELLIOT: The proposal in this Amendment is that we should substitute some other basis of arriving at the value of imported goods for the basis proposed in the Clause, which is that the costs insurance and freight should be included. The main argument of the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment was that his proposals represented the practice in the United States. I do not understand this sudden zeal for the practice of the United States. Why not the practice of the United Kingdom? For 17 years we have operated the basis of arriving at the value which is laid down in the Bill. Why should we at a moment when we are making a change-over of this kind, adopt
a method of estimating value which is unfamiliar to the merchants concerned, unfamiliar to the public and unfamiliar to the Department which will have to deal with these matters?

Sir P. HARRIS: This is a Free Trade country.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Baronet still harps on the idea that this is a Free Trade country but he forgets that it is a country which has high tariffs on a good many articles.

Sir P. HARRIS: Excise duties.

Major ELLIOT: Sometimes I wonder whether the hon. Baronet has been asleep for 20 years. Does he consider that the McKenna Duties and the Safeguarding Duties carry Excise duties? [Interruption.] I am not arguing that question now, however, because the point is whether we should tear up the basis upon which these duties have been levied for 17 years and adopt a totally new basis at a. moment when we are trying dais experiment. I suggest that no case has been made out for altering our practice in this respect and on that account alone it would be highly inadvisable to make the change which the Amendment suggests.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has met the real point of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), which was that., in fact, the method of valuing proposed in the Bill might give an advantage to the countries which are contiguous to the United Kingdom. We have been told that the main object of this Measure is to deal with our trade and the question is whether it is proposed to deal with the trade situation by giving special encouragement to imports from the countries which are nearest to us and discouraging imports from the countries which are furthest away.

Major ELLIOT: Most of the far-away countries are our Dominions, and in any case their goods are getting in free.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks of everything in connection with this Measure as if it were going to last only for a few months. But Japan and China will not be always engaged in what I suppose I must not
call a war, and we have a very large trade with the South American countries, for instance, which are far away. I think that this matter has not been given sufficient consideration. We have had too little explanation as to the actual effect upon our trade of these duties.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The Financial Secretary suggested that there would be difficulty in applying the method proposed in the Amendment, but paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2) provide for all contingencies and meet any difficulty as regards arriving at the net price. The only thing we ask in the Amendment is that the duty should be levied on the net value of the goods rather than on the net value with cost insurance and freight added. Paragraphs (b) and (c) provide that in certain instances prices are to be arrived at in certain ways and there should be no difficulty in arriving at net prices.

Mr. NUNN: A little practical experience might be helpful in the consideration of this matter. The difficulty in connection with this Clause is mainly a difficulty of administration. When you try to discover a price at the other side of the world you at once involve yourselves in tremendous difficulties. I am aware that America does this, but she does it with great difficulty and with great annoyance to American subjects. Hon. Members will recall the tremendous dispute which took place some years ago in Paris owing to the activities of the American Customs agents who were operating there. If our Customs department has to prove values on the other side of the world, it will involve a tremendous increase in our consular staffs abroad; there will be very great difficulty, and disquietude will be caused as to whether we are getting the right values or not. I do not wish to say anything which might seem to reflect on the character of commercial men, but I have had some experience in connection with the administration of a Customs department, and it has taught me that in this matter of commercial honesty the question of putting in invoices for Customs purposes, takes rank with the question of "diddling" railway companies. It is not really dishonesty. It is a form of activity somewhere between honesty and dishonesty, and I dare say most hon. Members will know that
almost every exporter of goods takes very good care to have duplicate documents, one set of documents being for his customer and the other for Customs purposes. I have even encountered a perfectly respectable Scottish baillie who had the misfortune to try to palm off on me, in connection with a private purchase that I was making, duplicate documents, not knowing what my particular job in life was. When you have that state of affairs, it is obvious that the Customs department would be up against great difficulties in any case, and the more we can lessen those difficulties the better it will be for the efficiency of the department and the more will the merchant be saved trouble.
We do lessen those difficulties—and I am speaking from practical experience—by arriving at the value in this country. There is no question about that, from a practical point of view. It is something we can prove. I should have liked to see the Customs Department given power actually to purchase goods, in a case of dispute, at the declared value. That is not in the Bill, but it would have been a very useful power to have behind the Government Department. You can prove the value of the goods here, but it is very difficult to do so abroad without setting up the most elaborate machinery. Why one should involve the country in the expenditure necessary to have inspectors and so forth and an expert staff at every Consulate, I cannot understand, when, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has pointed out, already this country has been operating under the system laid down in this Clause for 17 years. I would remind the Committee also that the whole of our commercial statistics are collected and published on the basis of the c.i.f. value.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I do not rise to support the Amendment, but I wish to get clear a statement by the last speaker. I understood him to say that every exporter in this country had two sets of invoices, one for Customs purposes and one for the consumption of his own people at his place of business.

Mr. NUNN: Then the hon. Member rather misheard me, because I said "almost every exporter," and I was not referring to this country. My experience is abroad, and almost every exporter that I encountered certainly did send a
duplicate set of documents. I have had the opportunity of having them in my own office.

Mr. WALLACE: I am glad that that explanation has been given, because the hon. Member did not make it clear at

first, and it sounded like an unworthy imputation against the exporters of this country.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 350.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[6.19 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (fork, W. R., Rormanton)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bernays, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
John, William
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middesbro, W.)
McGovern, John
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Holdsworth


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Duggan, Hubert John


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Carver, Major William H.
Dunglass, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Castlereagh, Viscount
Eady, George H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Castle Stewart, Earl
Eales, John Frederick


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Robert Anthony


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, [...]y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon, Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Aske, Sir Robert William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Elmley, Viscount


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Ballour, George (Hampstead)
Chotzner, Alfred James
Emrys- Evans, P. V.


Baltour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Christie, James Archibald
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Balniel, Lord
Clarke, Frank
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Clarry, Reginald George
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Falls, Sir Bertram G.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fermoy, Lord


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Collins, Sir Godfrey
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Colville, Major David John
Fraser, Captain Ian


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Conant, R. J. E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cook, Thomas A.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Bird Sir Robert S. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Ganzoni, Sir John


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Copeland, Ida
Gibson, Charles Granville


Borodale, Viscount.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Bossom, A. C.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Glossop, C. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Craven-Ellis, William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crooke, J. Smedley
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goldie, Noel B.


Boyce. H. Leslie
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cross, R. H.
Grattan, Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crossley, A. C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon, John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimston, R. V.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brown, Brig,-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Buchan, John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Denville, Alfred
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Burnett, John George
Dickie, John P.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbort
Hanbury, Cecil


Butt, Sir Alfred
Donner, P. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Drewe, Cedric
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Milne, Charles
Scone, Lord


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Selley, Harry R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hillman, Dr. George B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. H. (Ayr)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Hopkinson, Austin
Morgan, Robert H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hornby, Frank
Morrison, William Shephard
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Horobin, Ian M.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick
Soper, Richard


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J,


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert K.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hurd, Percy A.
North, Captain Edward T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Nunn, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
O'Connor, Terence James
Stones, James


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Storey, Samuel


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strauss, Edward A.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ormiston, Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ker, J. Campbell
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Kimball, Lawrence
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pearson, William G.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Knebworth, Viscount
Peat, Charles U.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Knight, Holford
Penny, Sir George
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Templeton, William P.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Petherick, M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Law, sir Alfred
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Law, Richard K. (Hull. S. w.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Leckie, J. A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Train, John


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsay, Capt, A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsden, E
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rankin, Robert
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Renter, John R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mabane, William
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Wayland, Sir William A.


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wells, Sydney Richard


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Weymouth, Viscount


McEwen, J. H. F.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


McKie, John Hamilton
Ropner, Colonel L.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rosbotham, S. T.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


McLean, Major Alan
Ross, Ronald D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Maitland, Adam
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Runge, Norah Cecil
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Russell, Hamer Field (Shcf'id, B'tside)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Martin, Thomas B.
Salmon, Major Isidore
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Salt, Edward W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)



Millar, Sir James Duncan
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Womersley.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Savery, Samuel Servington



Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 14, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
to the price at which such goods are freely offered for sale in the country of origin, and the Commissioners shall have regard to the higher of such prices; or.
6.30 p.m.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Commissioners the opportunity
of ascertaining, for the purpose of determining the value, the price in the country of origin as well as the price in the country of importation, according to the terms of the Bill. It will strengthen the hands of the Commissioners.

Major ELLIOT: This is closely akin to the Amendment which was previously
moved, and the arguments which applied in that case apply here also. It would, in fact, import exactly the same element of uncertainty into the whole of these transactions as would the other Amendment, and we desire to avoid that.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not rise to press the Amendment if my hon. Friend 'desires to withdraw it, but I do not think that he put his case before the Committee with his usual ease. The case dealt with by this Amendment, which is not the same as the previous Amendment, is the case of goods sold here below the price at which they are ordinarily sold in the country of origin; in other words, they are goods which have been dumped in this country. There is no doubt that it would strengthen the hands of the Customs to be able as an alternative to take the price at which the goods are sold in the country from which they come, if that price is higher than that for which the goods are ordinarily sold in this country. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary will find that a point is covered by this Amendment which is quite different from the point with which we dealt a few moments ago.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The Financial Secretary said something to the effect that it would not simplify the procedure. The purpose of the Amendment is to render the work of the Commissioners more effective, and give them the opportunity of determining price on a somewhat wider basis than the opportunities at their disposal.

Major ELLIOT: It may make it more effective, but in this, as in so many cases, the best is the enemy of the good. If you widen the thing to bring in all these extraneous considerations, you will import confusion and not simplicity into the scheme which we are desiring to put through.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: The Commissioners will have power to get such evidence as they may require. If they find on examination that certain goods are being sold in this country below the price in the country of origin, they can start on that as a basis, as we have done in the case of dumped goods, and put
on a higher duty than they otherwise would.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, after the word "goods," to insert the words:
and in the case of such goods as, in the condition in which they are imported, are not offered for sale either in the country of origin or in the United Kingdom, the Commissioners may call for such information as to the cost of production as they may re-quire.
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Commissioners to determine the value of such commodities as may be exported to this country but are sold neither here nor in the country of origin, and for which there is no ready market price. The Commissioners should then be given powers to ascertain to their satisfaction, or to call for such information as may be necessary, to determine the basis on which they shall fix the value, and such information as is required as to the cost of production.

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that we shall have difficulty also in accepting this Amendment. The only conceivable case of imported goods which are not offered for sale here are goods imported for the importer's own use. The Commissioners have power in Clause 15 (2), to have regard to all relevant considerations, and to require such information as in their opinion is necessary to ascertain the value of the goods. I think that the Amendment is really unnecessary.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I gather from my right hon. and gallant Friend that he is satisfied that the necessary powers are provided in the Sub-section to which he has referred. I was not satisfied that the case was exactly covered, but I shall be glad to accept his assurance; and, with the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 (Determination of disputes as to value of goods) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Conversion of ad valorem duty into duty chargeable by weight or other measure of quantity.)

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 15, line 7, after the word "with," to insert the words "the Committee and."
This Amendment arises at the beginning of the Clause, and the abject is to enable the views of the Committee to be taken on the question whether the duty should be ad valorem or specific. As the Clause stands, the only reason for which the Treasury may convert an ad valorem duty into a specific duty is that of convenience. We know of many articles where the ad valorem duty is inconvenient administratively, and where it would be preferable to convert it as equitably as possible into an equivalent specific duty. This and the following Clause make provision for that. There is, however, a wider consideration than that of mere administrative convenience. For many purposes an ad valorem duty is not the most suitable form of duty from the point of view of the kind of protection we wish to give—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to' discuss this Amendment and his two following Amendments together, because it does not seem to me that the question of the conversion of duty arises on this Amendment? If he wishes to have one discussion, I will make no objection if the Committee approves.

Mr. AMERY: The next Amendment—in page 15, line 10, after the word "greater" to insert the words "advantage and"—is directly relevant and consequential on this first Amendment. The Amendment after that—in line 13, after the word "duty," to insert the words "or part of the duty"—refers to estimating the duty in part or whole, and is not directly connected. With your permission, I should like to take the second Amendment with the first. The point I wish to make is that the advisory committee will have to consider as one of its chief duties whether ad valorem duties should be converted into specific duties, not merely on the grounds of administrative convenience, but because, from the point of view of protective tariffs, they are a better form of duty. If that he so, that aspect of the matter ought not to be left out of sight by the Treasury when
they are considering the conversion of any particular ad valorem duty to a specific duty. In order to make sure that there is touch between the two, I suggest this Amendment, which brings in the Advisory Committee. I do not think that it will add in the least to the labours of the Treasury, but will ensure that any conversion as contemplated in these Clauses is taken in consultation with the Committee. It does not in any way queer the pitch of the Committee in any recommendation they may make in regard to additional duties. I have, therefore, also suggested that the word "advantage" should be inserted.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has quite appreciated the limitation's which are contained in Sub-section (2), because the only way in which conversion can take place from ad valorem to specific is by an equivalent specific duty. There is no general power given to substitute a specific duty for an ad valorem duty without regard to the value of the ad valorem duty. That being so, I think that it is clear that the question is not one for the Committee at all. It is a question for the Treasury, for the only reason for converting an ad valorem duty into a specific duty is that it is administratively more convenient to do so. There is no other reason. If the two duties have to be the equivalent of one another, there can only be that one reason, and therefore, while I see no objection to accepting my right hon. Friend's second Amendment, I must decline to accept the first one.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that these duties are to be equivalent. Let us take an example. Under the old Safeguarding provisions gloves were dutiable at 33⅓ per cent. I forget the average value per pair, but let us assume that it was 3s. A specific equivalent duty would have been a duty of 1s. per pair, but its effect would have been entirely different from that of the 33⅓ per cent. duty, because there was a certain class of low-grade gloves, imported in large quantities at Is. per pair, and the effect would have been to exclude entirely the importation of such gloves while still allowing the importation, at a comparatively tow rate of duty, of the more expensive glovesspecialities—of a kind which would have
been imported in any event. Therefore I do not think the Chancellor is quite on sound ground in saying the Amendment is inappropriate on account of the limitations under Sub-section (2), and I would ask him to reconsider it in that light.

Mr. AMERY: May I add one word further as a plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I do not think he has quite understood the purport of the first Amendment. While the Clause at present deals only with conversion on grounds of convenience, it may very well happen that when the advisory committee come to consider an additional duty on a particular article they may conclude, on higher grounds than convenience, that on general grounds of fiscal policy, the whole duty should be specific, but their present powers enable them only to make the additional duty specific. Therefore, if the rest of the duty is to be made specific, it is not only "convenience," but the views of the committee, which ought to influence the Treasury to make it specific. On the other hand, the committee may have very definite views that a certain duty should as a whole—that is, both the 10 per cent. and the additional duty—remain on an ad valorem basis, and though there might be some grounds of convenience for changing that into a specific duty, the Treasury would not do so if they were aware that the committee attached importance to the whole duty remaining an ad valorem duty. Therefore, I submit that the view of the committee as to the kind of duty there should be, whether specific or ad valorem, is one that ought to influence the Treasury, as well as the mere view of convenience which is put forward in the Clause. I am glad that the Chancellor accepts the word "advantage" and I hope he will give further consideration to the point that consultation with the committee is the best means of ascertaining whether there is or is not any advantage in making a conversion.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 15, line 10, after the word "greater," to insert the words "advantage and."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that these words will not be inserted. I do
not understand the object of adding mere verbiage to an Act of Parliament—if it be mere verbiage; but if these words do make a change, as it seems to me it is possible they may do, then I think it is a change in the wrong direction. After all, the advisory committee have got enough work on their hands already. I do not know haw on earth five men will ever get through all the work to be done.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The committee are left out.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If we add these words we shall impose upon the Departments concerned all the questions which the committee would otherwise determine. If the Clause remains at it is, it is simply a question for the Treasury and the Departments to substitute for the committee's determination of an ad valorem duty the exact equivalent duty on weight, but if we put in the word "advantage" they may have to consider a host of other questions in arriving at their determination. It seems to me that it, would widen the Clause and give greater powers to the Departments, lay upon the Departments part of that work which at present is to be left to an impartial committee. I think this Amendment has been accepted in order to placate the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), but I feel they are dangerous words, and ought not to be included.

Mr. AMERY: The intention is certainly not to add to the labours of the Departments but to prevent their action being narrowed and limited by a reference to one consideration only—the consideration of convenience. In the question of conversion from ad valorem to specific there may be other considerations, though I need not go into them now, and since there may be advantages this Amendment would then enable them to be taken into account. I would prefer this change to be made on the recommendation of the committee, but if the Chancellor does not see his way to do that, I still hope that he will, as he said just now, allow wider considerations to come within the purview of the Treasury.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The equivalent is a, question of mathematics—a question of bringing in the same amount; but directly we introduce the consideration
of advantages we are asking people to consider all sorts of questions which are not capable of being decided on figures.

Sir It BANKS: Convenience is not a question of mathematics.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, after the word "duty," to insert the words "or part of the duty."
After the expression of the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last Amendment, I am, naturally, a little doubtful whether he will accept this one. Nevertheless, I hope he will give it very serious consideration, if not now, at any rate before the Report stage, because now that we have inserted the word "advantage" we are not out of order in considering the advantage there might be in having a mixed duty. It may be of advantage on the ground that it would be the most suitable form of duty, suitable on the grounds of giving effective protection, and also suitable from the point of view that though an ad valorem is largely desired, nevertheless the fact that it has at the same time a large specific element is a very convenient device for protecting the revenue against losses that might arise from under-valuation. The real case for this Amendment I have put on a previous occasion, but I hope the Chancellor will be a little more considerate now than he was in dealing with the earlier Amendment with the same purpose.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that this Amendment is really consequential upon another Amendment which was put down on an earlier part of the Bill but was not taken. That was an Amendment which would have had the effect of allowing the Committee to recommend that a duty should be partly specific and partly ad valorem, but that power was not given to the committee, and therefore I do not think this Amendment would be consistent with the rest of the Clause. The Amendment would mean that 'without any recommendation from the Committee that a duty should be split so as to be partly ad valorem and partly specific, the Treasury should proceed to convert it, but there is no rule given for converting part only of a duty and not the other part. I think, therefore, that this Amend-
ment is really unworkable without the Amendment to which it is really related.

Mr. AMERY: If the Amendment is unworkable in this place, I do submit that the whole scheme is less workable if the Committee or the Government are not allowed to divide the duty into a partly specific and a partly ad valorem duty. For many purposes such a duty would be much the fairest and most convenient, both administratively and from the point of view of the protection given. I hope that before the Report stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether on this Clause or on some other Clause, will reconsider his decision, if he has really no objection—I can hardly believe he has —to allowing the possibility of mixed ad valorem and specific duties as part of our tariff. They form a, very large part of most other tariffs, and I should think they should form a part of our tariff, on certain ranges of articles at any rate.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I remember, I did not express any opinion on this point. The previous Amendment, as I said, was not taken. I cannot at the moment charge my memory as to why it was not, whether the Chairman said it was not in order or did not select it.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I think I can refresh the memory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The discussion took place on an Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend which was part of a general reconstruction and consolidation of the two duties into one duty. The main part of the discussion took place on this point, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the Amendment not on this point, apparently, but on the point of the general reconstruction.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to."

Clause 18 (Computation of equivalent of ad valorem rate) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Provisions as to orders.)

The following Amendments stood capon the Order Paper:

In page 16, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
and no such order shall beoome operative unless and until the same shall have been confirmed by a Resolution of that House." —[Mr. D. Mason.]

In page 16, line 25, after the word "House," to insert the words:
and if so approved shall cease to have effect on the expiration of five years from the date on which it was made."—[Major Nathan.]

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) is out of order. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) does not desire to move the second Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 16, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) Any such order as aforesaid imposing a duty of Customs shall cease to have effect upon the passing of the next subsequent Finance Act.
The object of this Amendment is to see that the duties which are now imposed shall come within the ambit of the annual Budget statement. The Clause gives power to make Orders apparently without any period determining those Orders, and we are anxious that they should run only up to the next Budget date after they are made, so that they are not re-imposed under the provisions of this Act, but, if they are re-imposed, are re-imposed under the provisions of the Finance Act of the year.
7.0 p.m.
The Committee will appreciate that the duties must, of course, form part of the Budget in any particular year, and the question this Amendment raises is whether or not the Committee would be better advised to permit these Orders in the form here laid down merely to be made until the next Budget date and thereafter to allow the imposition of Customs taxation to take its ordinary place in the Budget of this year. The procedure laid down in this Bill is, of course, of an exceptional kind and not in accordance with the usual financial procedure. The system by which these Orders come into force and are subsequently approved by this House is not usual and is one to which there are many objections. We are anxious that, once these Orders have been made, the system of Orders as regards these duties should cease and that the duties should
take their place in the ensuing Budget proposals. We hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will accept the view that it is better that, once established, these Customs duties should come up for review in the Budget statement and not remain isolated from the rest of the country's finances so that they cannot be dealt with when the Budget is being considered and when it may be desirable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adjust these duties in relation to the general financial situation of the country. It is desirable that the House should then have power to review these duties and the revenue arising from them.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Surely the effect of this Amendment would be to do away with Sub-section (5) by which the Committee can vary or revoke these Orders, and you would not 'have that power of quickly putting on and taking off an Order, which is part of the primary duty of the Committee. This particular Amendment, therefore, is cutting across the whole principle of the working of the Committee and is against the principles of the Bill. For that reason, I hope the Financial Secretary will reject this wrecking Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: Though I would not accuse the hon. and learned Member of moving a wrecking Amendment, still it is obvious that it would have that effect. If every one of these Orders were incorporated in the Finance Bill of the year, it is obvious that the Bill would be of unmanageable proportions. The suggestion that the House could keep these Orders under review in that way would not materialise, because it would he necessary to have a very strict time table on the Budget and the opportunity for review would be lost. The opportunity for review by the House lies in the necessity of the Government securing an affirmative Resolution from the House before any of these Orders become effective. This is indeed a very strong demand to make upon the Government and the House of Commons for the consideration of these matters. If we look at our financial procedure this year we see that, soon after we finish this Bill, we are going to embark upon the fourth Finance Bill of the year. Then the horticultural Orders, which are liable to lapse, have to be again considered by the Committee
and probably reimposed and incorporated in the Finance Bill. If all these Orders were incorporated in the Finance Bill, it would defeat the object of the Amendment, because it would clog the legislative machine to such an extent that it could only be dealt with by drastic limitation of debate, and consequently the review which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks would not come into operation.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether in fact, when the Budget statement is made, a statement will be made as to the result of these duties as part of the financial statement of the year? That is what we are really anxious for. We are anxious that this matter should be put fully before the Committee as part of the general financial statement. I appreciate the difficulties and, if I can have an assurance on that point, that when the Budget statement is made these duties will not be shut out from it as being dealt with by a separate Act of Parliament but will be dealt with—as they must be—as a substantial part of the finances of the country, then we will be satisfied.

Major ELLIOT: I cannot commit my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am certain that when the great annual opportunity for reviewing the income of the country takes place substantial blocks of income like this will necessarily have to be considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me when the House can review a decision taken on one of these Orders? I understand that under this Amendment we can review it when the Budget comes up, but, if that opportunity is to be denied us, how long have we tied our hands under these Orders? Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in supposing that there will be such a very large number of these Orders. The Committee are only human and will not be able to get through an enormous amount of work in the year. For how long does the House tie its hands by acting upon the decision of the Committee and passing the affirmative Resolution provided in the Bill?

Major ELLIOT: Surely, when the House has passed an. Order, it is effective until the House revokes it. The House
has the same opportunity of dealing with it as with any other legislation. It can alter, revoke, or modify it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand that the Order is made subject to the decision of the Committee and that the Government do not act in the first instance. The reversal of that process depends upon the Committee making up its mind to that effect, and therefore, unless a new Act of Parliament is introduced, we tie our hands for all time. After the next election, when we are in a majority, we shall be unable to undo this evil work even though the experience of the country of the results of these tariffs is, wholly unsatisfactory. We shall have to repeal this Act before we can deal with these tariffs. That is a strong argument in favour of this Amendment which gives the House an automatic opportunity of revising their working as the result of the experience of the tariff each year.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PRICE: I beg to move in page 16, line 34, to leave out the words "or to the making of a new order."
We move this Amendment so that the House of Commons may retain some control over the working of this Measure. The general principles outlined in this Bill are such as to hand over a large amount of authority to the Committee which is to be appointed and to place a large amount of the authority of the House of Commons in the hands of these Commissioners. This Amendment suggests that, if an Order comes before this House and is rejected, the Department shall have no authority for issuing another Order dealing with similar articles, but that it must comp before the House and be dealt with by the House.

Major ELLIOT: Let me point out to the hon. Member that any further Order has also to come before the House and be sanctioned by the House. It would be impossible for one Order to affect any subsequent Order.

Mr. PRICE: I am suggesting that, if an Order is annulled after the House has taken into consideration, first and foremost, the welfare of the community, then neither the Commissioners nor the De partment shall have, power to issue: an Order of that description a second time.
If the matter requires to be dealt with a second time, it should go through the proper and constitutional procedure and be dealt with by the House of Commons alone.

Major ELLIOT: So it is.

Mr. PRICE: The Government are attempting in many of these Clauses to hand over the rights of Parliament to a committee, and I therefore suggest that, if the House considers that one of the committee's orders should not be accepted on a particular article or articles, then, if there II any need to reconsider it in the future, it should be the prerogative of the House of Commons and not of the Commissioners or the Departments to deal with it. The Bill in many of its Clauses is whittling away the rights of Parliament. I object to that and consider that there ought to be some limitation put upon the powers of the committee and of the Government Departments.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I only want to put one question to the Financial Secretary. He has just pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) that any new Order would have to come before Parliament. I want to ask him a question in connection with steel bars. In South Wales we have rolling mills that have no steam furnaces or anything of that kind, and they have to import a large number of billets for the purpose of manufacturing wire rods, hoops, angles, fishplates and various other sections of steel. In this Bill you are only going to impose a 10 per cent. duty. Assume for moment that the Advisory Committee recommends that that be increased to 20 per cent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this Amendment would not affect any Order issued by the Advisory Committee increasing the duty, but would only affect such Order as might be laid on the Table of this House for 28 days, and might be annulled or not on a Prayer according as Parliament might decide. This Amendment does not affect any Order imposing duties.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Could not "the making of a new Order," as regards which we are moving that it should be omitted, be far an Order imposing a duty?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; if the hon. and learned Member will look he will see that Sub-section (2) says:
(2) Any such order as aforesaid imposing a duty of customs shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made, unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved y resolution passed by that House, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
And Snb-section (3) begins:
(3) Any such order as aforesaid, other than an order imposing a duty of customs, shall cease to have effect.
The hon. and learned Member will note the words "other than an Order imposing a duty." It is to that Sub-section that the Amendment has been moved.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I accept your Ruling, but I think I can bring in this point. I was saying that the Order laid on the Table of the House may be to impose a duty of 20 per cent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Order is one imposing a duty, it comes under Sub-section (2), whereas the Amendment is being moved to Subsection (3), which only deals with such Orders as do not impose a duty.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to move, in page 16, line 36, to leave out Sub-section (4). I will try to explain briefly why I am moving this Amendment. Under the Bill the Commissioners are practically given power to impose taxation, which has usually been regarded as a prerogative of Parliament. It is especially laid down in Sub-section (2) that such additional taxation should be laid before this House within a period of 28 days. It has to be approved. That properly recognises that such taxation should not at any time be imposed except with the consent of this House. Sub-section (4), I realise, is framed in the usual terms, but we are dealing with an exceptional Bill and we are allowing the Advisory Committee powers which it is not customary to allow. Therefore, I consider that we would be right in deleting Sub-section (4) as there appears to be no necessity to give the Committee the right to impose taxation at a time when this House might not be sitting until two or three months later. If any additional taxa-
tion of this kind has to be imposed, it is reasonable to expect that the Government will be able to take the necessary steps either before Parliament rises or within a very short period of the time when it may be expected to be in session again.

Major ELLIOT: I think the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) will see that, during the present period, which is admittedly clearly one of necessity, to suggest that the Government should not have power to act because a new Order had to be laid before Parliament within 28 days, would unnecessarily fetter the discretion with which the Executive has asked the House to entrust it in these emergency times. I do not wish continually to harp on the subject of emergency. Everybody will agree that just now, when we are imposing fresh protective duties of a kind such as this country has not previously known, we are at any rate in a fiscal emergency if in no other. The House was elected by a great majority to give discretion to the Executive so far as possible to deal with the circumstances of the time. This is an exceptional Parliament. It is not the Executive which is asking for this discretion, but the Government of the day, and it is the Government of the day that this Parliament by an overwhelming majority was elected to support, and not merely to support, but to authorise it to demand a free hand to deal with this emergency. To fetter the Executive by this requirement would be contrary to the very intention that the country had in electing this Parliament. I ask the hon. Member if he cannot see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. ALBERY: I am bound, of course, to pay attention to what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said. I regret that they did not find some other way of making temporary these exceptional powers. Unfortunately, powers which are taken in times of emergency only too frequently become powers which are subsequently taken as a matter of custom.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 16, line 38, to leave out the words "dissolved or."
I hope I shall have the assistance of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) who has just spoken. We shall not go as far as he went, but I think we shall improve upon the point that he made. The time given for the House to consider an Order is 28 days. That appears to us to mean that if a number of Orders were issued and Parliament were then dissolved, they would be operative all the time until Parliament was re-elected. Therefore, a number of Orders which might be opposed if Parliament had continued, would have effect simply because Parliament was dissolved. I do not think it was ever intended that Orders should operate over an unlimited period without the House of Commons being able to exercise their authority.

Major ELLIOT: I do not think that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is as reasonable as he would make out. If the Parliament which is re-elected is of the same complexion as the Parliament which was dissolved, by hypothesis it will confirm the Order. At any rate, it will have full opportunity to review an Order and if the Order in question is of a controversial nature, the new Parliament will be jealous of its authority and the Executive will be very desirous of not coming into conflict with it. If, on the other hand, the Parliament which is elected is of a different complexion to that which has just been dissolved, it consequently is not likely to support the same Executive again when Parliament meets, and it would not pass the Order. The Order will not even be brought before it by the Government of the day, because the Government of the day will be changed. An Order will not be brought before Parliament, and it will accordingly lapse. To suggest that the fiscal system of the country should be in chaos owing to the possible desire of the Government not to summon Parliament immediately after the general election which has resulted in affirming its authority, is not a reasonable conclusion to draw, and consequently I hope that the hon. Member for Leigh will not see the necessity for pressing his Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is most versatile in the reasons which he gives for opposing these two different Amendments. First of all, he points out to the hon. Member
for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) behind him, that this is merely a matter of emergency and that the Executive must be trusted in times of emergency, and so on. Now, dealing with this question of the Dissolution of Parliament, we are on a completely different basis, because he is not dealing with it as a matter of emergency, but as part of the permanent fiscal machinery of the country, which is an entirely different proposition. His suggestion that you are to throw the fiscal machinery into untold difficulty because one Order, which happens to be made at a time shortly before the Dissolution of the House, does not get carried through the House before the Dissolution, is, I suggest, exaggerating the difficulty very much indeed.
He has entirely overlooked the real point of the difficulty, which is that these Orders come into force before Parliament approves them. Automatically, they come into force until such time as Parliament either directs that they shall continue or cease, a period normally of 28 days, which is a very wise provision. Why, because Parliament is dissolved, should that 28 days he prolonged, it might be for another 28 days or even for longer? Why not have a regulation by which, when a Dissolution is approaching, these Orders are not made for a week or two before Parliament is dissolved? Surely it is not necessary to make Orders so near to a Dissolution that those Orders cannot be got through the House. If that necessity arises, I suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that whether the new party that comes into power be the same as the old or not, does not really matter, but that while Parliament is dissolved, nothing should happen to prejudice the new Parliament. If there are Orders that continue to run, that does prejudice the new Parliament, and it prejudices the people whose goods are taxed under the new Order.

7.30 p.m.

Sir R. BANKS: Is not the real basis of Clause 19 simply this, that, when an Order is made, time begins to run against that Order for 28 days, after which, unless Parliament approves of it, it will lapse. Surely it is fair that time should not be running against that Order during periods when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued. It is all very well for the
hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to talk about the delay being prejudicial to Parliament. It is prejudicial to an Order which Parliament might very probably have confirmed, but which it has not had an opportunity of considering or debating. The whole basis of the Clause is that time does not run, as obviously it should not in fairness run, when the House is not in a position to discuss the matter.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was quite kind to the Financial Secretary. He made out just now that these duties were more or less permanent, and earlier in the Debate he said something else. It was only about 24 hours ago that an Amendment was being moved from the benches of his own party clearly making out that in their intention these measures would go on, possibly, for generations.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. DAVID MASON: This Clause, which gives such enormous powers to the executive, is, perhaps, one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. It practically hands over the powers of this House over finance to an advisory committee or to the Board of Trade or the Treasury. As has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), the increased power given to the executive is embodied in Sub-section (2), which states that
Any such order as aforesaid imposing a duty of customs shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made, unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolution passed by that House.
That, really, is putting the cart before the horse. The Financial Secretary, in his enthusiasm for what he calls efficiency, would probably like to see these Orders made by these advisory bodies and simply come to this House for confirmation. Many Members of the House in all parties are, however, well informed and able to contribute their knowledge in regard to these various Orders, and it seems to me that, so far from the House passing this Clause and handing over to an executive body the
right to propose an Order, the proposals in regard to duties should be discussed here before going to the Treasury and the Board of Trade. If an Order comes to the House of Commons after it has been drafted by the Advisory Committee and the Board of Trade and the Treasury, there will be very little chance of its being revoked by the House, while the duties will have already been collected, certainly for a short period. It is most unbusinesslike to put on duties and interfere with trade and then come to the House of Commons for confirmation.

Sir P. HARRIS: Whitewash.

Mr. MASON: It seems to me to be an affront to the House of Commons. Members of the House, to whatever party we may belong, are surely able to contribute our quota of knowledge and experience, but we are asked to confirm an Order after it has been put into force and has had its effect upon our trade. The House is thus asked to approve of duties ranging from 10 per cent. to 50 or even 100 per cent., according to the various powers of all the bodies of which, unfortunately, we have already approved under this Bill, and that approval of the House is to be asked for after the Orders have been put into force.
This Clause takes away from the House its ancient powers for which we have had to fight in the past, and which we have had great difficulty in securing. Surely, whatever our party, we are all first and foremost House of Commons men, and I suggest, to many Members who may not agree with my own humble views on Free Trade, that this subject of the privileges of the House of Commons is one on which we should raise our voices. We may feel strongly on the question of either increasing or reducing a duty, but under this Clause we are asked to approve of what is already the law of the land; we shall have signed away our powers when we pass this Clause. The Financial Secretary is no doubt very anxious to increase the efficiency of the machine, but why should we hand over our ancient rights to any board, however constituted, and allow Orders to be passed which are brought to us for approval in this way? I could give numberless examples of occasions when we have had great difficulties, when another place has interfered with our rights, and now, apparently, we are prepared to hand over
the same powers to the Board of Trade or the Treasury.

Mr. GROVES: Is this the free hand?

Mr. MASON: As far as I understand, there was to be a free hand for the Government of the day to bring in certain legislation, but, surely, the electors of this country and the Members who came to the House of Commons never imagined that they were giving a free hand to the Government to bring forward legislation in which we signed away our ancient rights. What is the use of our attending here? [Interruption.] Hon. Members, apparently, agree on that point, but, if they desire to come here without offering any contribution to the question whether a duty is advisable or inadvisable, regarding themselves merely as ciphers, that is their own affair. I appeal to hon. Members, of whatever party, to protest and to be prepared to go into the Lobby and show by their votes that they disapprove of this Clause, because it means handing over the powers of this House to an arbitrary and autocratic body.

Sir P. HARRIS: It is very significant that within the precincts of this House a Committee is meeting to-day for the purpose of raising a memorial to a certain Eliot who, 300 years ago, suffered martyrdom for standing up for f he principles of Parliamentary Government against an autocratic King. It is rather sinister that a namesake of his should be asking that these powers of taxation should be handed over to a Committee of this House. No more comment is necessary.

Mr. PRICE: I was rather interested in the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason), particularly when he said that in this Clause Parliament is handing over to a Committee the traditional authority which it has possessed for years. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for his arguments, but I do like even Parliamentarians to be sincere. If my hon. Friends below the Gangway consider, as apparently they do from their speeches in this Debate, that the National Government are responsible—as I agree they are—for endeavouring to lower the prestige of this House, they should come across on to these benches. Before came here, I was reminded that it was
impossible to be a Parliamentarian and a saint. I suggest that nearly every day while these Clauses have been under consideration our friends below the Gangway have been using arguments definitely belonging to the programme of the party which is represented on this side of the House, and, if they really mean what they say about the Government having attempted in this Bill to ruin the trade of the country and impoverish the poor more than they are at present impoverished, their place is on this side of the House.

Mr. MAITLAND: The speeches from below the Gangway opposite have been very interesting. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason) has taken advantage of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to restate his objections to the whole Bill, but, however interesting those speeches may be, they would have been more appropriate at an earlier stage of the Bill. The Clause which we are now discussing itself states that:
Any Order made by the Treasury or the Board of Trade under this Act shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
I do not see in that statement any sacrifice of any of the privileges of this House. On the contrary, it states that any Order made by the Board of Trade or the Treasury—which are executive Departments of this House—shall be laid before the House as soon as may be. It is quite proper that such Departments should have some executive power. Surely no hon. Member would suggest that, at the time when this Bill is being put into operation, whether it be regarded from the point of view of emergency or as a permanent contribution to our general legislation, there should be a restriction of the powers of the executive Departments in the general interests of our trade and commerce. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was entirely mistaken when he said that this was putting the cart before the horse.
The general principle of the Bill is that its provisions shall be as effective and as expeditiously applied as possible, and there is a definite statement that, if the House of Commons does not approve of these Orders, they shall cease to be
effective. So far from there being any suggestion that the House will lose any of its powers, there is a recommendation to the contrary, and the House will by no means lose its powers if the Orders are properly considered. If either the Board of Trade or the Treasury or the Department responsible, during the time when the House is not sitting, brings in any Measure which is not in the general interest of the country, Members of the House of Commons have a right to bring them to book. It is no question at all of our giving up any of our rights and privileges.

Mr. MASON: I do not think the hon. Member quite understands the second part of the Clause. The duty is put into force first and has to be approved within 28 days. I want the House to have an opportunity of discussing it before it comes into operation.

Sir R. BANKS: On a point of Order. Is not the discussion really irrelevant to the Clause? Surely the proper time for objecting to giving power to the Treasury to make Orders which shall have an operative effect as soon as made was on Clause 3. This Clause assumes that the Orders have been made and have become operative. I should have thought these observations were not relevant to the Clause at all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Debate is getting very far from the Clause. The Committee has decided that the Treasury shall have power to make Orders.

Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: Does not the Clause provide what the House itself shall do with the Order when the Order has been made? Would it not be in order to ask that the House should step in at an earlier stage before the Order has been made?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that can be brought in as a general argument, but it cannot be argued on this whether the power to make orders should or should not have been given. That has already been decided.

Mr. MORRIS: It is not a question of the power to make the Order, but that the House shall have an opportunity of giving its decision on the Order when made.

Sir R. BANKS: The Treasury has power to make an Order and, as soon as it is made, it becomes operative. Observations as to the length of time during which it is to lie on the Table will be relevant to the Clause, but much time has been consumed by the hon. Member in objecting to a power which has already been given to the Treasury under Clause 3 and which it is now quite irrelevant for us to discuss.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Is it not the fact that all that happens under Clause 3 is that the Treasury gets power to make an Order, and if it makes an Order, the duties so directed to be charged shall be deemed to be chargeable under the Section. It does not say when it shall start or finish. I suggest that it is in order in a subsequent Clause to say that, in spite of the Order being so made, it shall not come into force until the House approves it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think not. The Fourth Ways and Means Resolution specifically lays down that the Bill shall provide that any Order made under the Act shall cease to have effect at the expiration of 28 days from the date when it is made unless some time before the expiration of the period it is approved by the House. I must hold that we are governed by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. MASON: My argument was that this period was too long. There is no reason, had the Clause been properly drawn, why we could have had it discussed immediately—within 24 hours. As it is, the duty may be in force for something like 28 days, and then you come to the House of Commons and have it confirmed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member, in his enthusiasm, went rather further than that and began to criticise the power to make Orders. That has already been decided. The only question here is how long the Order shall be laid.

Mr. MAITLAND: I am very glad that the interruption has enabled the hon. Member to make one observation which has any bearing in the Clause at all. With that I resume my seat.

Major ELLIOT: Surely all that we have heard about signing away the rights of
the House is completely and utterly beside the point. Time and again the House, when dealing with duties of Customs, allows the Executive of the day power to introduce proposals which are not fully sanctioned by the House for a very considerable time. If you give all the world notice that you are about to tax certain goods after a certain date, those goods will begin to pour into the country. It is necessary to take the power at the moment when you say you are about to levy the duty. The House always recognises that and entrusts it to the Government. As to the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), that a distinguished namesake of my own would have looked with gloom upon my action at present, all I can say is that, if my distinguished namesake had read these words,
Any Order made by the Treasury or the Board of Trade under this Act shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and any such Order as aforesaid shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of 28 days from the date on which it is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by Resolution passed by that House.
he would have said Nune dimittis. All these high constitutional questions are answered by the simple terms of the Clause and, when the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason) says I desire to make the machine work, it is an accusation which I admit at once. I want to make it work. The whole House wants to make it work. The House is weary of the discussion. It is longing to get to work on other matters. The discussion on the Schedule is being held up by a purely academic and futile discussion and the Committee deeply resents the arguments, and repetition of arguments, to which it has had to listen during hours and hours not only to-day but on previous days.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I must protest against the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not know any opposition which has ever been conducted with more consideration for the rapid getting through of business. Had we desired, we could have hung up discussion indefinitely, as the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues did in the last Budget Debates when there was a Guillotine put on by our side—

Major ELLIOT: I was not applying my remarks to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues, who have been most courteous in all their discussions on this matter. My remarks were directed to another quarter.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman's lambasting was only for domestic purposes. As far as we are concerned, it seems to us to be a sort of machinery which is quite good. We shall, I hope, have opportunities of using it in a rather more rapid form when we come back after the next election.

CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 17, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
The expression 'the British Empire' means His Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom, territories under His Majesty's protection, territories in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations is being exercised by the Government of any dominion within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and any territory in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations is being exercised by the Government of the United Kingdom and to which Section five of this Act has been declared by Order in Council to apply as if it were a territory under His Majesty's protection.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word in introducing the Amendment, because it raises a very serious constitutional question. Certain territories have been placed under the care of the League of Nations, and mandates have been entrusted to various countries. We cannot be too careful in observing the terms of those mandates and recognising their existence. A mandated territory forms no part of the British Empire. You will cause a very great deal of suspicion amongst other nations if you try to suggest for a moment that a mandated territory is part of the British Empire, or is something which is in process of becoming part of the British Empire. The whole idea of the mandate is that a Power is entrusted with the care of a certain territory until the people of that territory shall be able to govern it themselves. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts down an Amendment in
which he defines the British Empire as including mandated territories.

Major ELLIOT: This is merely a drafting Amendment for the purpose of transferring a definition which appears in the Third Schedule into the body of the Bill. It is not put down to widen the British Empire. It is merely transferring a portion of the Third Schedule into the body of the Bill for drafting purposes.

Mr. ATTLEE: So much the worse. I thought it might have been an oversight, but we now find that it is deliberately put in. Is there any precedent in any Bill for defining the British Empire as including mandated territory? Has the Foreign Office been consulted on the matter as to what effect it is going to have in our dealings with the League of Nations? I think it ought to be postponed until we can have the Foreign Secretary here and he can tell us in what sort of light this will appear at Geneva. We protested earlier in these proceedings against the suggestion. We did not say you should not give benefits to the mandated territories, but it is clear throughout the Bill that there is an idea that the mandated territories are going to become part of the British Empire. In an earlier Clause you have in effect set up a kind of Navigation Law, by which the British Empire will have a preference as against other countries in the carriage of goods to mandated territories, and now we have this definition of the British Empire. We have already had the case of Iraq, where the mandate has been terminated, and we have the case of Palestine, where at some time or other it will probably be terminated. You may, if you like, say that every advantage given to a part of the British Empire order the Bill shall be given to a mandated territory, but to define the British Empire as including territories which by no possible stretch of the imagination can be called British Possessions, Colonies, or Dominions, but are simply territories entrusted to our care, is a breach of trust. The right hon. Gentleman might as well pay monies with which he was entrusted into his own account and draw on them at his pleasure. You are putting the country into the position of a trustee who is embezzling money.

8.0 p.m

Major ELLIOT: I do not share the hostility of the hon. Member to man-
dated territories. I wish them to have these advantages, the House wishes them to have them, and the League of Nations wishes them to have them. There are certain mandates which are specifically excluded. These are defined in the terms of the Sub-section. It will be seen in the proposals that His Majesty's Government are most scrupulous not to interfere with mandated territories either in the terms or the spirit of the letter of the mandate. All that we seek to do is that when, for instance, a territory like Tanganyika is producing a suitable product, and the territory of Kenya alongside is also—

Mr. ATTLEE: I think that the right hon, and gallant Gentleman is after the wrong hare. You are saying that the British Empire includes mandated territories. You are deliberately declaring in the Bill that a mandated territory is part of the British Empire. It is not.

Major ELLIOT: I am not declaring anything of the sort. The hon. Member has not only found a mare's nest, but he has found a mare's nest from which the mare departed 10 years ago. The provision was in the Finance Act of 1919. There was a Labour Government in 1924, and there was a Labour Government in office for two years after that. Did they repeal the Section in the Finance Act, 1919? They did not. Did they bring it to the attention of anybody at the League of Nations? They did not. Did they go to the Permanent Mandates Commission and object to it? They did not. And now, on the spur of the moment, the hon. Member rises at three minutes past Eight o'Clock on the last stages of the Import Duties Bill to object to a provision which he will find in the Finance Act, 1919. The definition which was made then for the purpose of the Finance Act has stood unchallenged for all the years since then by one Labour Government, and then by a second Labour Government, and it has also stood unchallenged by the League of Nations itself and by every single Committee and Commission set up under the League of Nations. I therefore ask the hon. Member if he wishes for any further explanation?

Sir R. BANKS: Cannot we put it right by merely saying that the British Empire
offers apologies to everybody for using so revolting a term?

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Exercise of powers of Board of Trade under Act.)

Amendments made: In page 18, line 4, leave out the word "Anything," and insert instead thereof the word "Any order or regulations."

In line 4, leave out the word "done," and insert instead thereof the word "made."

In line 8, leave out the word "done," and insert instead thereof the word "made."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 18, line 6, at the end, to add the words:
and any other thing required or authorised under this Act to be done by, to, or before the Board of Trade may be done by, to, or before the President of the Board or any person authorised by him in that behalf.

Mr. JANNER: I am sure that there must be a number of hon. and right hon. Members of the House who think with me that this is a very drastic suggestion on the part of those who are proposing the Amendment. Already, according to the various powers which are being given, certain bodies have rights which are ordinarily invested in Parliament as a whole. In this instance, it is clear that the intention is to relieve the Board of Trade from taking the full responsibility and from conducting the investigations with regard to these matters. We know that in ordinary procedure a person to whom a matter is delegated has not the power to delegate his authority to anybody else. I contend that it would not be consistent with the privileges and rights which we are entitled to have exercised that one person who might be authorised by the Board of Trade should be enabled to inflict upon us Orders under this particular Measure of such wide and far-reaching importance. In these circumstances, I oppose the introduction of the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope that I shall be able to remove the fears of my
hon. Friend with regard to the Clause. It was found by a technical mistake as it were that everything authorised in the Bill to be done by the President of the Board of Trade would have to be done either by the President himself or by a Secretary of State in his behalf. There are a number of detailed administrative provisions in the Bill which it would be an imposition upon the President of the Board of Trade or upon the Secretary of State to require that they should carry out personally. For instance, there are the provisions in Clause 9 which merely seek information of certain manufacturers. With regard to those administrative provisions we are asking, in the Amendment to which my hon. Friend refers, for authority for the President to delegate his duties to subordinate officials—I hope that my hon. Friend follows me—whereas any of the major powers conferred upon the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the imposition of taxation in other Clauses of the Bill will still have to be exercised by the President or by a Secretary of State.

Mr. JANNER: I am afraid that my fears are not entirely removed. They are somewhat more acute than that. The Clause referred to says specifically that anything authorised under the Act is to be done by the Board of Trade, and then they wish to add:
any other thing required or authorised under the Act to be done by, to, or before the Board of Trade may be done by, to, or before the President of the Board or any person authorised by him in that behalf.
If my hon. Friend desires to remove any serious doubts which we possess, may I suggest to him that on the Report stage the wording should be amended so as to make it clear that there are certain things which cannot be done by anybody to whom authority has been delegated by the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that if my hon. Friend could reconstruct the Clause by reference to these Amendments he would see that his fears were groundless. I will try and perform that function for him.
any Order or regulations authorised under this Act to be made by the Board of Trade may be made by the President of the Board of Trade or in his absence by a Secretary
of State, and any other thing required or authorised under this Act, to be done by, to, or before the Board of Trade may be done by, to, or before the President of the Board or any person authorised by him in that behalf.
The words and any other thing "only refer to the carrying out of the administrative provisions of the Act, for by the very first words we preserve to the President or to the Secretary of State all the important powers.

Mr. JANNER: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the explanation which he has given, and, if that is all that it means, I am satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE —(Relief from duty in case of cargoes in transit.)

"No duty under Section one of this Act or additional duty under Sub-section (1) of Section three shall be chargeable on fruit, vegetables, or other goods of a perishable nature which were actually shipped on the fourth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, in the one case and the date of the Order of the Treasury in the other case."—[Captain Barton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain BARTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
The facts set out in the new Clause speak for themselves. They are only meant to deal with certain goods of a perishable character which actually were shipped or were on the high seas on the respective dates, the first date being the date when the Resolution was passed by this House, and the second date being the appropriate date when any additional duty to be put on by the Treasury is recommended by the Committee. I do it because I think that goods of this description are in a different category from goods of the ordinary description of trade, in view of the fact that they are of a perishable nature. When they arrive in this country the importer, instead of having an opportunity of warehousing the goods until the time has arrived when he can find a market for them, either for sale in this country or for re-export abroad, is handicapped to this extent,
that he is compelled, owing to the nature of the goods, to find a quick sale at the market rates at the time. Even if the goods are subjected to refrigeratory conditions, which only last for a certain time, he cannot retain the goods for a longer period than a few days in the warehouse without the goods becoming absolutely unsaleable. Therefore, these goods are in a different category, in that the trader is restricted and compelled to sell the goods for what he can get for them.
It is obvious that the provision can only apply to cargoes of goods which have come from certain quarters of the globe, because in the month which has elapsed since the 4th February and the appropriate date of the additional order, most ships would have arrived in this country. It does apply to the case of fruits, such as apples and pears, which come from the North American Pacific coasts. I would not object if the provision were made specifically to relate to fruit coming from that particular quarter. I think the Amendment is one which might be accepted, and I should be glad to hear that it meets with approval.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have listened with attention to my hon. Friend, and I must say that I am not precisely clear what he wants to do. The new Clause says that no duty shall be charged on goods of a perishable nature which were actually shipped on a particular date. My hon. Friend must realise that it would be very difficult to determine the condition that he seeks to lay down. In these circumstances, however desirable I might think his aim to be, I do not think the Clause would be a useful addition to the Bill. I wish that I could give him a more satisfactory answer for I should be only too happy to do so, but his new Clause is open to a very grave defect.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the new Clause which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), I understand that he wishes to move it with a slight alteration. I think he had better call attention to it, because without that alteration the Clause would not be in order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for entrepot trade.)

"(1) With a view to preventing undue interference with the entrepôt trade of the United Kingdom the Commissioners shall, subject to such conditions as are hereinafter mentioned, allow any goods, subject to duty under this Act, to be imported and to be retained otherwise than in warehouses duly approved for the warehousing of goods without payment on the importation thereof of any duty chargeable under this Act.

The conditions on which goods may be so imported under this section shall be such conditions as the Commissioners think fit to impose for securing that if and when the goods are removed for home consumption all duties which would but for this section have been chargeable under this Act on the importation of those goods shall be paid.

(2) In this section the term 'warehouse' has the same meaning as in the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876."—[Sir W. Greaves-Lord.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The new Clause as originally drafted might be of far too general an application. Therefore, the form in which I move it is, in the third line of the Clause, after the word "goods," to insert the words "subject to duty under this Act." Subject to that alteration, I think the Clause might remain as it is on the Order Paper. I do not move the new Clause in any sense hostile to the Bill or to the purposes of the Bill, but merely in order to make quite sure that the great transhipment trade carried on by this country shall not be unduly interfered with. The idea of the Clause is merely to prevent the entrepot trade from suffering from undue interference. This turns very largely on the effect of Clause 13. That Clause is limited very strictly to goods which are imported solely with a view to the re-exportation thereof. The result of a strict reading of that Clause might be that a considerable amount of goods imported into this country, which are afterwards transshipped, might be subject to duty, with no chance of recovery of the same. The effect of my Clause would be to safeguard goods which are genuinely imported with a definite view of re-exportation. It. would also avoid—a matter of considerable importance—the excessive charges for handling.
It is impossible to deal with this matter by proposals for free areas in our ports
such as are to be found in ports in foreign countries. In my view free areas would be entirely unsuitable to the transhipment trade as carried on in this country. One's knowledge of a number of ports in this country would convince one that any idea of free areas would be very difficult to carry out, where you have, for instance, ports where the large shipping lines have appropriated berths, and where the goods which are to be transhipped come in at one end of the port and go out at the other. Free areas would be entirely unsuitable for that class of trade, and this Clause would give to the Commissioners the full liberty to afford facilities to such goods without the necessity of providing free areas, and also without imposing the burden of putting the goods into the bonded warehouses.
It might be possible to carry out the idea in this way, that goods imported into this country that are going to be transhipped might be allowed to remain at the quay at which they are unloaded until such time as they must be loaded on to the ship by which they are to be re-exported, in which case they might be taken straight from one quay to the other and then loaded on to the ship for re-export or, on the other hand, where the loading quay is known they might be taken at once from the ship from which they have been unloaded to the quay which is appropriate to loading for re-export. In those circumstances we should save a great deal in the way of handling the goods and also a great deal of expense, and we should not put too great a burden upon the trade. If you take goods to a bonded warehouse and take them out again you have two handlings, and a consequent burden of expense upon the merchant who has imported the goods solely with a view to re-export. This is a matter which must be obvious to those at the Board of Trade, but I desire to move this new Clause in order that there shall be a clear understanding as to the position of the transhipment trade.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. and learned Member has been good enough to say that he desires a declaration of the Government's intention with regard to the position of the entrepôt trade. I give him that declaration willingly, and
I think he will find it completely satisfactory. The hon. and learned Member wishes goods to be stored in warehouses which are not recognised bonded warehouses. It is necessary for me to remind him of the legal definition of a bonded warehouse.
A bonded warehouse is any place in which goods entered to be warehoused may be lodged, kept and secured.
That is a definition of great latitude and leaves much to the discretion of the Customs authorities. I am in a position to tell the hon. and learned Member that they will have the greatest tenderness and regard for those engaged in the entrepôt trade and wherever reasonable will afford them every facility. In these circumstances I hope he will be satisfied that what he asks for is in fact being done. It is not possible, however, to follow literally the terms of this new Clause and remove entirely from the control of the Customs dutiable goods coming into this country, but provided the Commissioners are satisfied that the goods are properly dealt with they will continue as they do now to give every regard to the interest of the entrepôt trade.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Having regard to the very clear statement of the Parliamentary Secretary I do not propose to go any further with this new Clause. He has made it perfectly clear that every consideration will be given to avoid unnecessary handling and unnecessary expense. I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption in case of certain countries.)

Notwithstanding anything in this Act neither the general ad valorem duty nor any additional duty shall be chargeable in respect of goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been consigned from and grown, produced, or manufactured in any country, colony, or dependency which permits free entry to the goods of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Dingle Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this new Clause is quite clear and should commend itself to members of all parties in the Committee. In spite of the enormous tariff majority
which exists in this House there are very few theoretical protectionists, and on many occasions we have heard tariff reform speakers declare that what they object to is not Free Trade in itself but rather to the one-sided system of free imports, under which we admit the goods of the foreigner while he gives us no corresponding facilities in his markets. Even those who advocate a tariff with the eloquence and forcefulness to which we have been accustomed nevertheless declare that they regard Free Trade as the ideal system. In view of these declarations I feel that I can appeal even to Members of the Conservative party to support this proposal, and I appeal to them in the name of whit they once held sacred—reciprocity and fair trade—both of which principles are embodied in this new Clause.
8.30. p.m.
The Committee is aware that there is already a provision in the Bill, Clause 7, dealing with trade arrangements with foreign countries, but this new Clause will not interfere with Clause 7, in fact, in my view it strengthens it. It goes in the same direction but a little further. It does not prevent bargains being made for a lower tariff or in regard to special classes of goods, or bargains being made with any nation which does not give us complete Free Trade in the future, but it issues a general invitation and makes it clear that we are ready to do business on equal terms with anyone who is ready to do business with us. We are saying, in fact, to other nations of the world that if they are prepared to let in British goods without let or hindrance, and let them compete on their merits in their markets, we are prepared to do the same for them. This Clause does not apply to any country. The words are:
In any country, colony, or dependency
and that is the important part of the new Clause. Take the example of the Canary Islands. They are a dependency of Spain, and although Spain is a high tariff country the Canary Islands are a free area and all British goods are let in free of Customs duties. There is a case in which we get perfectly fair treatment, and automatically we ought to give the same treatment to the Canary Islands. Next summer, at the Imperial Conference at Ottawa there will come into existence for the first time some kind of an Imperial Zollverein. What we
are urging is that entry into this Zollverein should be free to anyone who cares to come in, that we ought not to limit its boundaries. I am not attacking the idea of developing Empire trade, let us develop Empire trade and communications as much as we can, but in doing so do not let us shut the door in the face of our friends and customers in other parts of the globe. One of the reasons why the party to which I belong are opposed to Lord Beaverbrook and his closest followers is because we believe he has too narrow a conception of Empire. He wishes to decree that trade shall only be allowed to follow the Flag. A much better view of Empire is that it is not limited to those parts of the atlas which are coloured red.

Major PROCTER: The hon. Member is misstating Lord Beaverbrook's position entirely. He has made no such assertion that trade should only follow the Flag.

Mr. FOOT: Lord Beaverbrook's aim is to entrench the trade of the Empire, and when it was reported that a Minister of the Crown had had art interview with the representative of the Danish Government and had been talking about a trade agreement an immediate attack was made upon him by Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers.

Miss HORSBRUGH: It has been definitely stated by one Minister of the Crown that no arrangement will be made with any foreign country until after the Ottawa Conference.

Mr. FOOT: I do not think that Lord Beaverbrook has shown any particular willingness for trade agreements with any other nation outside the British Empire.

Major PROCTER: He is the one true prophet.

Mr. FOOT: I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Member into the prophecies of Lord Beaver-brook; all I say is that his policy from the beginning has been the economic isolation of the British Empire. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends who seem to have such an attraction to Lord Beaverbrook, could point to any case where he has advocated trade agreements or free trade with countries outside the Empire. Let me follow that up. I was about to ask the
Committee to take the example, say, of a Scottish engineer working in the Argentine, backed by British capital, laying down British rails, and creating a demand by his work for British materials. I submit that he is just as good a citizen of the Empire as any one who lives in Canberra or Ottawa or Cape Town or any part of the world that is painted red. I do not wish to labour a very simple point or to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, for I believe it is generally felt in all parts of the House that we are not going to solve all our trade difficulties and trade problems merely by the limitation of imports.
When this Bill is passed the Government will have to come to a very much more important and difficult part of its work, and that is the expansion of exports. It is to that end that the new Clause is directed. It ought to go out to the world that we are ready to welcome and encourage customers, wherever they are to be found. In the past few months we have all been made familiar with the phrase "Buy British." I am not criticising it in any way, but I suggest that there is a far more useful slogan, and that is "Sell British," and I hope that that will be the watchword of the Government after they have disposed of this Bill. I am very glad that the representative of the Government on the Front Bench at the moment is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, because his colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has been taking the view on a number of Amendments that any suggestion which comes from these benches is necessarily a hostile Amendment or a hostile suggestion. That is not necessarily true.
I assure the Minister, and I hope he will believe me, that this new Clause is not intended in any hostile sense. We are in very much the same position as Disraeli in the late 'forties and early 'fifties of last century. A new fiscal departure has been made of which we are not able to approve and for which we cannot personally take any responsibility; but the verdict has been taken, and we on these benches, and all Members of the House, have to try to make the best of it and not the worst of it. We know that the Bill is certain to reach the Statute Book, unless that were prevented by the
operations of a second and more successful Guy Fawkes. But, apart from that contingency, we know that the Bill will be an Act of Parliament in a few days. I would urge on the Government that by accepting the new Clause they will make it clear that they are not approving or endorsing in any way the economic nationalism which has been strangling the international trade of the world, and that so far as is humanly possible this Measure is to be used as a tariff to end tariffs.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would not doubt any assurance of my hon. Friend, and when he tells me that his object is to assist the Government I can only express my gratitude, and if I were asked to express anything else it would be appreciation of the very vivacious speech which he has delivered. My hon. Friend seeks to exempt from duty goods coming from any country which gives free entry to British goods. As far as Dominion goods are concerned, they are already exempt up to a certain date, after which date new arrangements will be entered into. Colonial goods are completely free. There remain only those goods which come from countries that cannot be described as countries within the British Empire. As regards those countries the proposal of my hon. Friend is that the goods shall come in free if those countries give similar treatment to our goods. My hon. Friend has deplored the departure which we are making in our fiscal policy and he wishes to keep to the old policy. The old policy still prevails to this extent: We are governed by the most-favoured-nation Clause in our arrangements with the majority of foreign countries. Under that Clause we must give to all countries the same treatment as we give to a particular country wherever the most-favoured-nation Clause operates.
What, then, would be the effect of the new Clause? A particular country would give free entry to British goods. We would be compelled consequently to give free entry to their goods, and under the most-favoured-nation Clause we would have to give free entry to all other countries enjoying the benefit of that Clause, which would not be countries giving us the benefit of the free entry which my hon. Friend envisages. Therefore he will see that, however pacific his intentions may be, the actual terms of
his Amendment go far beyond the intention that he himself expresses, and on those grounds I am sure that the new Clause will meet with his own disapproval.

Mr. D. FOOT: With regard to the most-favoured-nation Clause, surely the same difficulty will arise under any arrangement made under Clause 7 of the Bill? The Government must have anticipated that in drafting the Bill.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemptions in case of goods in transition between United Kingdom ports.)

"No duty under this Act shall be payable on any goods conveyed in any vessel on a trans-oceanic route which has arrived at any port of the United Kingdom on or before 29th February, 1932, notwithstanding that a portion of such goods may be discharged at another port of the United Kingdom on or after the date when this Act comes into operation."—[Sir F. Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I apologise for introducing a manuscript Amendment at this stage. I had put down an Amendment to a new Clause which is on the Paper, but that new Clause was ruled out of order, and it has therefore been incumbent on me to draft this further new Clause. I am opposed to excluding from duty the goods in any vessels that may arrive from what I may describe as the near ports, but what I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee is the fact that there are now certain steamers en route from the Pacific carrying cargoes of fruit. These steamers are, the Nictheroy, which sailed from Seattle, 5th January, for Liverpool, Havre, London, Rotterdam and Hamburg; the Loch Katrine sailed from Vancouver, 7th January, for Liverpool, Southampton, London, Rotterdam; the Pacific Grove sailed from Vancouver, 9th January, for London, Liverpool, Manchester and the Clyde, and left Colon on 10th February; the Gracia left Vancouver, 15th January, for London, Liverpool and the Clyde, and sailed from Colon on 10th February; the Damsterdijk left Vancouver, 18th January, for Liverpool, London, Southampton and
Rotterdam; the Tacoma Star sailed Vancouver, 30th December, for Liverpool, the Clyde and London and arrived at Liverpool on 20th of this month. The Committee will appreciate that all these vessels had sailed long before this Bill was introduced. I do not hold any brief for forestalling in any shape or form, but one of these steamers has actually arrived, and the others are all due between now and 29th February, though, in the case of one, it may be 1st March.
The position is this. If these ships arrive at London, Liverpool or Southampton, as the case may be, on or before 29th February, they will be exempt from the duty. But the whole of each consignment is not for one port. The consignments are divided up for the different ports which I have indicated. Each of these six ships carries cargo intended for different ports. If it appeared necessary to do so in order to avoid having to pay the duty, the shipowner could have the whole of a cargo discharged at the first port. Thus the cargo would be dumped out at the first port and in all probability would cause considerable congestion. It would then be possible to ship parts of that cargo round in coasting steamers to the other ports for which it was intended, thus avoiding the duty. As I say, this is not a question of any desire on my part to assist in the avoidance of the duty, but I think that a, commonsense point of view ought to prevail in reference to this merchandise. I have said that no duty will be payable by any of these ships arriving on or before 29th February and it seems rather un-businesslike to say in effect, "If you want to save the duty you can dump it all at the first port and afterwards send it round to the other ports, thus increasing the cost of the articles by having them handled a second time."
I cannot help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see the reasonableness of my proposal. It is not going to cost the Exchequer anything but it is going to assist the merchants if you say to them, "We are quite willing to, accept the first arrival as rendering the cargoes free from duty." I may add that the contracts for these goods were, in many cases, made in August or September. I have inquired into the circumstances and I find that the money, in many cases, hat been paid for this mer-
chandise, either in cash or by banker's draft. In these times when industry is so bad and when merchants are suffering heavily, I am sure we do not wish to make things more difficult for them or to increase the cost of sending such goods on to the final ports of discharge. To give the small help which is asked for in this new Clause will not interfere with the fundamentals of the Bill and I hope that, in the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to accept my proposal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I appreciate the difficulty to which my hon. and gallant Friend calls attention, but I am afraid it is inevitable that that difficulty should arise. If a change of this kind is made and if we decide that certain new duties are to come into force, there must be some sort of difference between the goods of those who have succeeded in landing their cargoes just before the duties have become payable, and the goods of those who cannot manage to land their cargoes until after the duties have become payable. My hon. and gallant Friend probably knows that the established law in connection with the Customs is that the time at which duties are determined to be payable or not, depends on the time at which the goods are entered with the Customs. That is the law and practice. There is no other way of doing it.
Let the Committee consider what is happening at the present time. A number of ships are on the sea bound for the United Kingdom. Some are near; some are a long way off; some can get to this country before 1st March, and some are not due to arrive until after that date. My hon. and gallant Friend says, "But they may have parts of their cargoes consigned to one port and other parts consigned to another port. If a ship arrives before these duties come into operation and discharges the whole of its cargo at the first port, it will be discharging part of its cargo at the wrong port, but if it goes on to the other ports with the rest of the cargo it will have to pay duty." That is true, but let the Committee observe what would happen if the proposed new Clause were adopted. It would then be quite possible for a ship, comparatively near to a port in the United Kingdom to make a dash for
the nearest port and land just a small part of its cargo and then go on and land the rest at other destinations and so evade the duty altogether. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that if that were allowed in this case, it would form a precedent which might be extremely embarrassing in the future. He will see the difficulty in the way of accepting the Clause and understand why I am obliged to decline to do so.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed new Clause is not a complete denial of the argument of the Tariff Reformers, that the foreigner pays the duty? All that the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) is concerned about is that the duty should not be paid by those bringing in these commodities in certain ships arriving after 1st March. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman in refusing the new Clause would have put forward the ordinary tariffist's objection about the foreigner paying the duty—

The CHAIRMAN: I think that question hardly arises and the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore was more in order than the hon. Member.

Sir F. HALL: If I may be permitted to say this in reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), I do not think he followed me when I put the facts before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was particularly careful to say that the amount had already been paid for these things, either by cash or by bankers' drafts. The goods had already been bought before there was any intention of bringing in this Bill. If these contracts had been made subsequently, I would not ask for any concession, but it is only these specific steamers, which have actually come within this category, for which I am pleading, and I have already said that if it were a question of vessels on short voyages, I would not have asked for any concession. These vessels left their port of lading at the beginning of January, and one at the end of December, when there was no question of any tariffs at all or of anybody else having to pay the charges. The circumstances are such, however, that I would ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if he says that he cannot
do anything now, whether between now and the Report stage to-morrow he will not give the matter with regard to these six steamers his careful consideration, because one of them has actually arrived. It would cost the Exchequer nothing at all, but it would save an enormous amount of extra work and the additional cost of getting the goods to the other ports of discharge. I do beg of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the question favourably.

Mr. MACLEAN: I followed quite clearly everything that the hon. and gallant Member said, but he merely repeated his first speech, which was to the effect that this particular consignment had already been paid for, and what he was objecting to was that they should have to pay something extra in the shape of a duty. Therefore, I am perfectly correct in saying that he has now admitted to this Committee and to the country that it is not the foreigner who pays the duty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend has put his case so persuasively that it is very hard to refuse him, but I would point out that, although he is pleading only for these six or seven ships, the same problem would arise every time a new duty was put on. Therefore, we are not legislating for these six or seven ships which happen to be on the sea at the present time, but we should be laying down a new general principle, which would always be applicable in every case that might arise in the future. I would remind the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that the argument to which he refers was never used about cargoes of imports which had started before the duties were levied.

Mr. MACLEAN: If any duty is put on at all, it must be paid by someone.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that although the merchants about whom the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) is talking paid for the cargo when it left the other side, when they land their cargo here and have to pay the duty, the merchants will put it on and get it back from the consumer?

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question that we cannot discuss now.

Question, "That the Clause he read a Second time," put, and negatived.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Goods exempted from the General ad valorem Duty.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment that I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir E. Shepperson)—in page 19, to leave out lines 7 to 10.

Mr. ATTLEE: On a point of Order. Will you, Sir Dennis, give us some further indication as to how you are going to call the Amendments to the Schedule?

9.0 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments will be called in the ordinary way in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper at the present time. The first Amendment, which I have just called upon the hon. Member for Hereford to move, is one which would leave out what may be described as the third item in the Schedule, which consists of four lines. There are some Amendments after that to leave out portions of those four lines, but I understand that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies on this first Amendment he will probably make a statement as to the general policy of the Government in regard to this particular item. I propose that all the Amendments following the one which we have now reached, and relating to anything in lines 7 to 10, should he discussed on this first Amendment, and then, if necessary, divisions can be taken on the different Amendments as they come forward. But I think that, generally speaking, it will probably be found convenient to the Committee to take a general discussion on the first Amendment moved in regard to each of the items in the Schedule.

Mr. ATTLEE: In a previous Ruling, Sir Dennis, you said that you would allocate time as between Amendments seeking to add to and Amendments seeking to take away from the Schedule, but since you made that statement a large number of Government Amendments have been put down, and I can only put forward a plea that some of our Amendments shall be safeguarded.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have clearly in mind what the hon. Member refers to, and what I said on the subject generally on the previous occasion. I think the Committee can rely on the exercise by the Chair of the right of selection in
order to give, as far as is possible, a reasonable chance of discussion to Amendments of different classes.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I beg to move, in page 19, to leave out lines 7 to 10.
The purpose of this Amendment is to remove meat, including, of course, beef, mutton, and pork, from the Free List. If the Amendment is carried, meat, coming out of the Free List, would immediately become liable to the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty, and would further be able to be considered on its merits by the Advisory Committee, but while meat is within the Free List, as it is at present, it is absolutely and entirely beyond the scope of the Bill, and the Bill cannot at any future time treat in any way with the problem of meat. I would remind the Committee that if meat is removed from the Free List, the Advisory Committee can at any future time, if they think well, put it back on the Free List.
Now there may be certain queries as to why I am moving this Amendment, but I do not think that any reply is necessary to those who know me. They will know that the whole of my life has been given entirely to the study of the theory and practice of agriculture, and they will realise, every one of them, that the main, though not the only, purpose of my moving the Amendment is to do what I can to benefit the industry which I have devoted my life to help. Not only have I spent my life in the study of agriculture, but during the past 10 years I have represented one of the very few purely agricultural industries of England. I submit that it is my duty, not only to the industry to which I have given my life, but to the constituency which I represent, to do what I can to obtain equitable fiscal justice for them.
In the First Schedule, which is now popularly known as the free list, two main things are notable. The first is that the list consists for the most part of raw materials. The second is that it does not contain any articles of manufactured goods. That is to say, manufactured goods are to be subject to the ad valorem duty and to any additional duty which may be imposed upon the advice of the Advisory Committee by the Treasury.
The principle of the taxation of manufactured goods and the free importation of raw materials is approved by every Member of the House and the nation generally as very helpful to British industry, but, unfortunately, this principle has in this Bill one great exception. That exception is the industry of British agriculture. I would like the Committee to realise that agriculture is an industry as well as iron and steel and cotton. It consumes raw material and produces from it manufactured articles which it has to offer in the open market. In this Bill agriculture is treated contrarily to the treatment of every other industry. Every other industry has free raw materials with a protected market.
Agriculture has a tax placed upon its raw materials, its maize, soya beans, and so on, and has to sell its manufactured goods, such as meat, in an unprotected market. What would we think if a tax were put on raw cotton, and at the same time Japanese or other manufactured cotton goods were allowed free entry? Lancashire would be ablaze with indignation. Are not agriculturists entitled to have the same indignation as Lancashire would have? I would ask representatives of Lancashire whether I am not right in claiming for the industry of agriculture the same treatment that is meted out to their own, cotton and iron and steel industries. Agriculture is to-day as depressed as the cotton and the iron and steel industries; indeed, it is more depressed than either of them. There is, however, this difference with regard to agriculture. If the cotton and iron and steel industries are depressed, they can close down their furnaces and looms and wait until the depression is past, when they can start again. When British agriculture is closed down, it cannot start again. If hon. Members have witnessed what happens to agricultural land through remaining derelict and uncultivated for two or three years, they will realise that once agriculture is down and out there is very little possibility of a resurrection of the industry.
We are dealing in this Amendment particularly with the case of meat. This country is renowned throughout the world for the breed of our cattle and sheep. The world looks to us for pedigree animals. If the breeding and feed-
ing of cattle does not pay, the producer goes out of business and the herds are dispersed. It would take a generation for those herds to be re-established. If British agriculture and the breeding of cattle goes under, it will take a generation to rescue them from the disaster. I therefore make a particular appeal on behalf of the cattle feeders and breeders. It is unnecessary for me to remind the Committee that British agriculture is the oldest and still the largest industry. I submit that it is our right to have fiscal protection, yet we see this Bill allowing the free import, of raw materials for other industries and giving a, protected market for their manufactured products, while British agriculture is left entirely in the cold. I make an appeal not only to my fellow agriculturists, but to my fellow industrialists to give fiscal justice to British agriculture.
Consideration for British agriculture is not my only reason for moving the Amendment. I suggest that the Amendment is in the national interest and that its acceptance would considerably strengthen the Bill. The reason given for not including maize in the Free List is that its inclusion would be a detriment to certain discussions which may take place at the Imperial Conference at Ottawa and that it might hinder possible trade arrangements with the Argentine. All the arguments used in favour of excluding maize from the Free List might with far more force be used in favour of excluding meat. Ninety-five per cent. of the maize comes from the Argentine.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the duty on maize generally. That comes afterwards.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I have no intention of discussing the duty on maize. My only point is that taking meat from the Free List and making it subject to a duty would help in the Conference at Ottawa and in agreements with the Argentine far more than keeping maize from the Free List. There is imported into this country annually £108,000,0000 worth of meat products. Of that amount £86,000,000 comes from foreign sources, and £22,000,000 from within the Empire. Of the £86,000,000 worth of foreign goods, £31,000,000 worth come from the Argentine, and £28,000,000 from Denmark,
chiefly in the form of bacon products. On these figures, I suggest that there is a far greater scope for negotiations at Ottawa and for any agreement with the Argentine with regard to the meat situation than there is with regard to maize. We cannot produce maize in this country, but we can produce meat. Why should we not put maize on the Free List and take meat out of the Free List.? We should then have the knowledge that we had given definite help to British agriculture, given help to the conference at Ottawa, and given help to the trade agreement which is going to be arranged with the Argentine; and we should all be satisfied and could go home to-night feeling very much brighter.
There is still another very material point in the national interest which I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee, and particularly to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Foreign meat to the value of £80,000,000 a year is coming into this country. This Amendment would put a duty of 10 per cent. upon that meat., and that would produce a revenue of £8,500,000 a year. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the present financial situation of the country, he can afford to let slip the opportunity of increasing his revenue by £8,500,000? I suggest that it would be in the national interest to obtain this £8,500,000. From a, national point of view, and from the standpoint of the interests of British agriculture, I appeal most sincerely for support for the Amendment.
I understand that this Amendment cannot be accepted and will not be accepted. What are the reasons for that? I think there are two. The first reason is fear of the dear food bogey. I submit that it is a bogey, called up only at suitable times by hon. Members of the Liberal party in order that they may frighten children and certain electorates of low intellectual capacity. Does anyone suggest that with meat from the Empire coming in free this duty of 10 per cent. would be wholly paid by the consumers? Everybody knows that it would not be. During the past, nine months there has been a fall of 20 per cent. in the price of beef, of 25 to 30 per cent. in the price of mutton and of 40 per cent. in the price of pork. Even if the whole of this duty were paid by
the consumer, which I suggest it would not be, consumers would be 10 per cent. better off as regards the price of beef than they were nine months ago, 20 per cent. better off in the matter of the price of mutton, and some 30 per cent. better off as regards pork. I submit that the dear food bogy is nothing but a bogy. I would like, if I were in order, which I fear I should not be—

The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member would not be in order.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: Obeying the Ruling which you have given in an appreciation beforehand of the point I was going to make, I refrain from making that point. Is it not possible for this House, in the interests of the nation, to slay once and for all the dear food bogy? Can we not decide to say that it is not quite honest to use the dear food bogy, as it has been used in the past, and may be used in the future, in order to influence an illiterate section of the electorate? The time has come for us to act honestly.
The dear food bogy is one of the reasons why this Amendment may not be accepted, but I think the real reason is that it is said that if it were carried the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would no longer remain in the Government. It is said that the right hon. Gentleman has in past times given certain pledges. Pledges are very dangerous things. I, personally, never gave any. I believe in the motto, "Safety first." But is it not possible for the President of the Board of Trade to remain? No one has gained greater admiration from the House and the country than the President of the Board of Trade, and I do not think it is possible that he would contemplate resignation. Surely he would follow the example given to him by the Home Secretary. I assume, though I do not know, that the Home Secretary gave certain pledges against the whole of this Bill during the election. He spoke against the Bill and voted against it, and was defeated in the Division. Has he resigned? He is still there. I must correct myself; he has just come in. May I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that in the event of this Amendment being
carried he should follow the example of the Home Secretary and remain a Member of the National Government?
It may be said that I, as an ardent supporter of the National Government, which I am, have not done my duty, by moving this Amendment. Surely it is right for us to remember that this is a National Government and as a National Government certain concessions of disagreement have been granted to Cabinet Ministers. Am I asking too much of the National Government and of this House that they should grant to me, a mere back bencher, the same concession to speak and to vote against the National Government that they have granted to Members of their own Cabinet? What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander. There are hon. Members of the National Government sitting near me who have been moving not one but dozens of Amendments and voting against the Government, all of which Amendments are weakening the Bill, and yet they are said to be constant and continuous supporters of the Government. I do submit that I am moving to-night an Amendment which will not weaken the Bill, but which will strengthen it, and therefore I consider I have the right to call myself a most loyal supporter of the National Government.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A little while ago, in answer to the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), you, Sir Dennis, said that you understood I was going to make a statement on the general policy of the Government in regard to this Amendment. I venture to think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I went even a little further than that, because I have put down a large number of Amendments to the Schedule which appear on the Order Paper. Some of those Amendments cover a great number of other Amendments already on the Paper in the names of hon. Members, but I have some reason to know that it is not universally appreciated how far the Amendments which I have put down go and I think it might perhaps save the time of the Committee and meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Limehouse, if, with your permission, I make a short statement on the Amendments that I have put down, explaining their scope. I do not ask that this should take the place of the discussion on the Amendments, but merely that I
should help hon. Members to see how far the Amendments which they have put down are covered by mine.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee will probably agree that that is a very convenient form of procedure in the somewhat special circumstances of the case, if the right hon. Gentleman does not press it too far. We have here a Schedule of great importance almost equivalent to a number of different Clauses, and I think therefore, if the Chancellor will be good enough to make what one might describe as a Second Reading statement on his policy on the Schedule, it would meet with the approval of the Committee.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already had occasion to explain that the course adopted by the Government in dealing with these provisions has been founded on expediency. We have not laid down any hard-and-fast rules as to what should or should not appear in the Schedule, but we have found that there may be arguments on almost every item, for reasons which conflict with one another on one side or the other. The Government therefore had to judge each item on its merits, and come to a conclusion as to which side the advantage lay. The Schedule, as it appears in the Bill, is comparatively short, and the effect of the Amendments which I have put down will be to extend it. That is due partly to the fact that fresh information has come to us since the Bill was drafted on various points and various indications in connection with different items, and partly to the fact that it is now proposed that the advisory committee should have power ultimately to recommend that articles should be taken out of the list as well as that articles should be put into it. As the Committee is aware, it has not been possible for me, under the rules of the House, to move the necessary Amendment, on this occasion, but I hope to do it by means of an Amendment to the Act in the Finance Bill which will come before the House at a later stage. We are therefore proceeding on the assumption that ultimately the Committee will be clothed with powers to recommend not only that imports should be put on the Free List, but also that they should be taken out. Having that additional elasticity in the
provisions of this Measure, it is possible for us to contemplate putting into the Free List now articles that perhaps we should never have ventured to put in if we knew that if once put in they could never have been taken out.
With those preliminary observations I pass to the various items which are covered by the Amendments. First of all, there are items which are in the same sort of category as those in the first line of the Schedule—gold and silver bullion and coins—articles the trade in which is subject to special considerations. To that list, I propose to add pearls and also semi-precious stones used for similar purposes in a slightly different class of trade. Then there is also platinum, a very valuable commodity, and one in regard to which a 10 per cent. duty would amount to a considerable increase in cost. Wool, as now entered in the Schedule, is expressed to include hair of various kinds of animals. Since that list was drawn up we have discovered that it by no means covers the whole area of the animal field, but that there are various other kinds of animal hair which are used and which form important ingredients in woollen manufactures. We have therefore thought it advisable to wipe out this category of animals which appear in the Schedule and to substitute instead all animal hair, which includes human hair. Another of the articles in the list is hemp, and it is intended that words should be inserted to make it read "hemp other than sisal hemp." The Government have been advised that sisal is also called "hemp or sisal hemp," and we thought it advisable therefore to indicate that we did not intend that sisal hemp should be in the Free List.
There is another article of interest to the Colonial Empire, namely balata, which is produced in the colony of British Guiana and also in other parts, and this also is to be taken out of the Free List. If it comes from the British colony it will still come in free. Whale oil is another article which is of interest to some hon. Members, and we have a provision for bringing in whale oil if produced in British floating factories. With regard to wood pulp, there is another material which is used for making paper. It is a kind of special
class of paper, and there is a considerable export trade. I mean esparto grass, which comes from North Africa and which is not produced in the Empire, at least, so far as I know, and which forms a foundation of some little importance. Esparto, therefore, will be coupled with pulp. Potash is a fertiliser of great importance, and that, too, is not produced within the Empire. It comes exclusively from foreign countries. Potash will likewise be included in the Free List.
There are two kinds of ore included in the list in the Bill as it stands. There is iron ore and tin ore. We have had representations that it is desirable that other kinds of ore should also be included, and the more we looked into this question the more it became clear that it is exceedingly difficult to discriminate between the ores of the different metals, because those ores are frequently used in association with one another. You can have cupreous ores and ores of lead and zinc. The Government thought it better to take tin ore and iron ore out of the Schedule, and put in metallic ores of all kinds, and to include with them other things, including concentrates, sweepings and residues, which are in the Schedule. That, I think, will simplify a good deal that part of the Schedule.
Then there is the question of copper. Copper is one of the metals which is not smelted in this counutry, which is produced in the Empire, but is not produced in sufficient quantities in the Empire to fulfil the requirements as used in this country. After careful consideration we have decided to include raw copper in its various forms in the free list. Then we have also included coal, coke and briquettes, for though these are not articles which are imported in very great quantities, there is, I believe, a provision in the United States of America that where these articles are subject to an import duty, there is a, countervailing duty put on in the United States against imports into that country. As we still export a certain amount of coal to the United States, we thought it desirable to put coal into the free list. That, I think, exhausts pretty well the Amendments which I have upon the Paper. Hon. Members will see that a very large number of Amendments which already stood upon the Paper have been covered in one form or another.
There is one other article upon which I would like to say a word, although it is one as to which no Amendment appears. There is no commodity on which we found it more difficult to come to a decision than maize. Maize is a most important feeding stuff in this country. It is imported in considerable quantities, something like £10,000,000 worth annually in this country, and of that, some two-thirds come from the Argentine. The arguments in favour of letting in maize free, or, on the other hand, of leaving it subject to a 10 per cent. duty, have been so nicely balanced one against the other that it has been extremely difficult to come to a decision. On the one side it may be argued that maize, being a feeding-stuff and used largely in the production of pigs, poultry and cattle, it is rather hard that the user of these articles, who is not going to have his product protected, should nevertheless be subject to a duty on one of his principal feeding stuffs.
That may be admitted as a very solid argument. On the other hand, there are solid arguments in the opposite direction. The first of them, and perhaps the most important from my point of view, is that the 10 per cent. upon the import of maize would mean a very substantial amount of revenue. It would mean about £1,000,000 a year, a sum which cannot be regarded lightly. Then, again, as I think was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) just now, maize chiefly comes from the Argentine. The Argentine is one of those countries with whom presently we hope to get into conversation with a view to making mutually advantageous arrangements, and seeing that the principal exports of the Argentine to this country are wheat, meat and maize, it is obvious that if we are going to allow these three articles to come in free, we shall have to trust ourselves to the good will of the peoples with whom we are going to carry on the conversation.
Then again, maize produced within the Empire is a substance of some importance in the Union of South Africa and a matter of much greater importance to Kenya Colony, where maize is used and cultivated, and exported not only by white settlers but also by the natives. A preference to that Colony on maize would undoubtedly be of great value. It may result in corresponding purchases
from this country. On the whole, taking these various considerations, I confess that my mind has been inclining to the course of leaving maize subject to the 10 per cent. duty. But I must also confess that I have been very much impressed by representations which I received from Northern Ireland as to the difficulties which would arise there if this 10 per cent. duty were imposed. In Northern Ireland there are a very large number of smallholdings, and on the smallholdings, I am informed, are something like 80,000 farmers, who gain their living by raising cattle and pigs to a considerable extent, and they are all small people. Their principal feeding stuff is this same maize. Over 500,000 tons were imported into that country. Not only the farmers are concerned, but the millers, because maize is milled and much of it is exported to the Free State. The position of Northern Ireland is made particularly difficult because they have only a land frontier between themselves and the Free State where no duty is imposed. Their competitors would be put at a disadvantage compared to the Northern Ireland farmers and millers. I must say, that the idea that the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, who will stand favourable comparison in their loyalty to the British connection with any part of the Empire should, as it were, be made to suffer for that connection in any way, in comparison with others, goes very much against the grain. Seeing that that consideration comes in in connection with those which I have already mentioned, the Government have come to this conclusion, that, on the whole, it would be best to put maize into the Free List, where, of course, it will be a subject of consideration at any future time if circumstances change, according to the recommendation which the Committee might make. Therefore, I shall be prepared, simply on the merits of the case, to put maize into this Free List, and to make the necessary addition to the Amendments which I have already put down on the Paper.
I now come to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, who has made a very eloquent plea for independence in this matter. He evidently was not very hopeful that his Amendment would receive favourable consideration, but that did not detract in any way from the force with which he
advocated it. I think I have alluded to this matter before, but the articles which are to go or not to go into this Free List have to be considered each one on its merits. If one were considering simply and solely the position of the agricultural industry, there is no doubt that my hon. Friend has made out a, very strong case, but there is another consideration which we cannot lose sight of, and I beg my hon. Friend to believe that in this matter it is not a question of difference of opinion between the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues. The view which is held by the whole Government is that, in the position in which we stand to-day, when we are off the Gold Standard, I will not say the question of food taxes, but the question of the cost of living, is not a bogy at all, but is something which has to be very carefully studied and watched, because, if the cost of living were to rise beyond what. I have called the danger point, there might be consequences in what is generally known as a vicious spiral—a rise in wages followed by further rises in costs, and so on—which would lead to an uncontrolled depreciation in the currency, and that is a contingency which I think none of us could possibly contemplate with equanimity.
That is a question which we have always to keep in mind, and, therefore, in deciding what we are to do about any particular article in the Schedule, we must consider what effect the imposition of a duty upon that article might have upon the cast of living, not taken alone, but taken in conjunction with any other consideration which may affect the cost of living. I took occasion, about a week ago, to point out to the House that at the present time the cost of living was artificially low—that in the natural course of events one would have to expect that the cost of living would rise. That is a question which one has to keep in mind in considering any possible addition to the cost of living by any action that we might take.
I do not want anything that I say on this Amendment to be taken as a pledge that this Government will never in any circumstances be a party to the imposition of a tax on meat. I do not make any such statement. What I do say is that in present circumstances, and having, in particular, the question of the cost of
living very much in our minds, we do not consider that this is a time when it would be prudent or wise to put a tax upon the import of meat into this country. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I cannot accept this Amendment, but I hope that at any rate the conclusion which I announced a little while ago about maize, arrived at, I agree, upon rather different grounds, has relieved the situation to some extent for those who are dependent on stock, in that they will no longer feel that, while they are denied protection for their own products, they are forced to pay a higher price for their feeding stuffs.

Mr. HENRY HASLAM: On a point of Order. I understood, Captain Bourne, that, your predecessor in the Chair ruled that we should generally, in this discussion, discuss the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), and the subsequent Amendments bearing upon the question of meat; but, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having made a very important statement bearing on that matter with regard to the placing of maize on the Free List, I should like to ask your Ruling as to whether the question of maize may also be included in the discussion which may now arise.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go outside the Amendment which has already been placed before the Committee. I allowed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make this evening a general statement on his Amendments, although that is contrary to my usual practice, because, under the provisions of the Guillotine Resolution, it would not be possible to move either to postpone consideration of the Schedule or to report Progress with a view to making a general statement, as I should have had to put either of those questions forthwith without discussion or debate. The Chairman and I, therefore, thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee that, the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Schedule should be put before the Committee at, the earliest possible moment. I cannot, however, permit a discussion outside the ordinary rules once that statement has been made.

Mr. AMERY: I think that the whole Committee is grateful to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer for the very clear statement that he has made on the subject of this Schedule. I have no doubt that in the main it will be a much better Schedule now than it would have been. Coming back to the question of a meat duty, there were certain observations which appealed to me in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He very truly said that this is a question, not of abstract principle, but of expediency, and he pointed out, in connection with maize, how closely balanced were the arguments for and against putting maize on the Free List. As he spoke, I could not help thinking that every one of the arguments that he adduced in favour of maize not being on the Free List was a much stronger argument in favour of meat not being on the Free List. From the point of view of revenue, meat would, of course, yield eight times as much revenue as maize. From the point of view of production in the Empire, the proportion of meat produced in the Empire is very much greater. In the case of one item, mutton and lamb, the Empire is already effectively self-sufficient, and it, could be so in a much higher proportion in the case of the other items than it is in the case of maize.
Even when we come to the very important question of the price to the consumer, which, of course, we have to consider in this matter, it is worth noting that, in the case of beef at any rate, this country draws its foreign supplies entirely from one source, the Argentine, and the Argentine has no other market in the world to which it can send its beef except the United Kingdom. It is so dependent upon this market that I believe it could be safely reckoned that the effect of such a duty, amounting to½d. per lb. at the most, would he borne by the Argentine producer, and not by the consumer in this country; and even if in these cases there were a slight addition, I would follow up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) just now with regard to the very heavy fall in wholesale prices of meat during the last few months—a fall which has continued in spite of our going off the Gold Standard. That fall has not been transmitted, except to a very small extent, to the consumer. At the moment there is a very
wide slack or lag which the wholesaler would take up if there were a small addition to meat prices, and which he would have no justification whatever for transmitting to the consumer. Therefore, as far as the point of view of the consumer is concerned, there is far less fear of any rise of price in connection with wheat than there was in the case of maize.
On the other hand, from the point of view of revenue, which is so important in balancing the Budget and maintaining sterling, and from the point of view of the diversion of supplies from foreign to Empire countries, the case of meat is a very strong one indeed. It is obvious that the arguments I have just used make it clear that the British farmer would not get any immediate appreciable advantage out of the exclusion of meat from the free list, certainly not until he was able to organise his business more efficiently. On that point, we have already the promise of the Minister of Agriculture that, when the bacon industry can show an efficient organisation, there will be some control of imports, whether quantitatively or otherwise. I trust the same pledge holds good in regard to other forms of meat production.
The point I particularly wish to bring before the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. It is clear that you cannot consider domestic meat production without taking into account at the same time the meat production of the Empire. I believe that in mutton the Empire is self-sufficient already. I believe that in bacon and pig products it could become self-sufficient in a very short time. I fully admit that in the case of beef it would take considerably longer to make us altogether self-sufficient, and indeed I do not know that we should necessarily aim at that. We wish to conduct an important trade with the Argentine, and in that trade, at any rate, a substantial element of Argentine meat may come into consideration. But there is a field for negotiation and consideration at Ottawa and, if the Government were to tell us that the main reason for holding up this question at this moment is in order to give it fuller consideration at Ottawa, the procedure might not be logically on all fours with the procedure in regard to other matters but it would make a great deal of difference to the attitude of a great many of us.
10.0 p.m.
In that connection we had to-day from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs an answer which I can only characterise as very disquieting and unsatisfactory. He said that while, of course, all matters were open for discussion the final decision in this matter of meat must always be subject to the general considerations involved in the domestic policy of the Government. If that means that the domestic policy of this Government is not to consider the possibility of duties upon meat in the interest of the Empire and home production, we should certainly have every reason to be dissatisfied. I got some hope from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that this question was not ruled out for all time, but I should like to have from some representative of the Government a clear statement that this matter is perfectly open for discussion at Ottawa and that the Government will be guided, not by any arbitrary rule laid down with regard to our domestic policy, but simply and solely by the consideration of the evidence that may be brought before it as to the capacity of Empire production now and in the near future and also, no doubt, as to what corresponding advantages British industries might reap in return. If we could get, before the Debate closes, a clear assurance on that point, the attitude of many of us would be very much affected. If the matter is left where the Dominions Secretary left it, with the very unpleasant intimation that our attitude at Ottawa will be to say that our domestic policy excludes meat duties, I must say that my hon. Friend and others will have every justification for using the same liberty that Cabinet Ministers exercise on this question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can produce to-morrow a copy of the Schedule containing his proposed Amendments—[Interruption.]

Sir JOHN HASLAM: On a point of Order. Are we entitled to listen to this discussion?

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Gentleman will speak to some of his colleagues, perhaps they will make it possible to hear what Members have to say. I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, following on the very important state-
ment he has made, indicating so many changes in the Schedule, it would be possible to bring forward an alternative Schedule embodying his Amendments. If he could do that, I am sure Members in all parts of the Committee would find it invaluable when dealing with the most serious Amendments on the Order Paper and he would find that he would confine discussion to a very limited area and would expedite business.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I intervene in the Debate with some considerable regret, because I warmly approve of the main principles of the Measure. I feel that this is a very momentous occasion because, in spite of the reassuring phrases of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it must be clear to the Committee that, unless action is to be taken soon in regard to this whole question of meat, or at least unless we are informed precisely what attitude the Government is going to take at Ottawa, the gate may very likely be closed and it may be immensely difficult to raise the question at some subsequent date. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the merits of the case. Frankly, in this instance I can find very little merit, because to put meat on to the free list seems to conflict with the whole of the principles of the Bill. May I enumerate some of the reasons why I feel very strongly that a different action should be taken. First of all, I think there is no one in the Committee who does not realise that the position of stock raisers is really desperate. There are very few of us probably who do not regret that three or four years ago some action was not taken to save the cereal farmers from the deplorable disaster with which they are confronted to-day.
We welcome the Government's quota and other proposals, but it will even now be too late to save a great many of the best of our citizens from ruin. This, unfortunately, applies very largely to the stock raisers in this country. I submit that as it is one of the greatest industries in the country, it ought to have the consideration of this Committee. It is sometimes imagined that agriculture generally is cereal, but by far the most important part of the agricultural industry in the country is probably stock-raising. We have the most magnificent pastures in the
world, we can turn out the finest beasts in the world, and if there is one industry which we ought by every possible means to put upon a secure foundation, it is our meat industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has mentioned, it is not a case where the Empire has only small supplies. I believe that I am right in saying that we produce something like 56 per cent. of our own beef in this country, and that the rest of the Empire can, certainly within the period of a few years, supply a large proportion of the rest of our requirements. And, undoubtedly, you have a weapon to enable you to get the remainder of your supplies at reasonable prices from foreign countries.
I submit—and here, I believe, everyone in the party to which I belong will agree —that we have a greater opportunity, through various meat products, of arriving at satisfactory agreements with the Dominions than with any other product. After all, I suppose that if you are talking to Australia, to New Zealand, to Canada and to the Irish Free State, meat and pig products are subjects which would come uppermost in your mind. Undoubtedly, if this is a, Revenue Bill, meat and pig products would be one of your greatest revenue producers. Owing to the great volume of your meat imports, you have an opportunity of correcting your adverse balance of trade, certainly with regard to your imports from foreign countries, which would be more helpful than, perhaps, any other commodities of which you can think. It is absolutely illogical to take this one great industry of meat, which is the finished product, and put in in your free list when the whole basis of your proposals is that you are endeavouring to assist the producers of this country, and to give security to production. With meat included in the British tariff, you would have, undoubtedly, an immense power of adopting reciprocity with the Argentine. In fact, I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say—it has been said in so many Argentine papers—that if there is a duty put upon Argentine meat coming into this country, as people in that country imagined there was going to be, the whole of that population would immediately be demanding of the Government of the Argentine that they should give advantages to our manufacturing industries in their markets. That is a
very big point and I attach—and I know that many of my hon. Friends do—enormous importance to our bargaining power in that direction.
I support most sincerely the argument which fell from my hon. Friend with regard to prices. Everyone is aware that there has been a colossal drop in wholesale meat prices in recent months, and I believe that fear which my right hon. Friend expressed with regard to prices is not justifiable. But if you had meat included, and if there was any increase of prices so as to affect seriously the producers in this country, your Committee would have power to remove the duties. Until after the Finance Bill they will have no power to put duties on. If you take the question of pig products, I think we all realise that we have an enormous power of expansion in this country. The right hon. Gentleman has given encouragement to pig producers by telling them that if in certain circumstances they were willing to organise and co-operate, the Government would he willing to arrange something like a quota.
That is exactly what occurred four or five years ago in regard to iron and steel. We were told that if the industry would rationalise, we could ensure industrial security. I do not believe that it is possible for large sums of money to be put into organisations and bacon factories in the country unless there is some security for those industries. Does anybody who studies the question doubt that of all your industries in the country, there is none which can be more speedily expanded than the pig industry? I am not exaggerating when I say that within a comparatively short time you can expand the number of persons employed in this industry by something like 100,000 persons. What ought to appeal to hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench is the opportunity to absorb a very large number of unskilled men into that industry, because every pig producer knows that you can very soon train a man to be capable of effective work in that line of agricultural production.
At Question Time to-day the right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary gave an answer to a question which was addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and by myself. We attach enormous importance to this question. The answer
was satisfactory as far as that side of the question went, namely, that it would be competent for the Dominions to discuss any proposals; any commodities would be open to discussion. But the fact remains that he concluded the answer by saying, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, that the final decision on the part of any Government must, of course, be always subject to any general consideration involved in the domestic policy of that Government. We want to know if His Majesty's Government go to Ottawa, and, if it is found helpful to obtain agreements to the advantage of the industrial population of this country, are they prepared quite readily to grant preferential duties upon various meat products? That is the point. Or is the case already judged Are the rumours correct that have been floating about— I hope that they are ill-informed rumours—that there is some door which is closed to that consideration? I hope that some representative of His Majesty's Government will make it clear that when our representatives go to Ottawa they will go with the mandate of the electors with freedom to promote Empire economic unity. If we close down one of the greatest hopes of arriving at real agreements with the Empire by any decision we take this evening, or by any remarks which may be made, it will be most harmful to the expectations of the Ottawa Conference.
I would only ask, in conclusion, cannot His Majesty's Government give us a, clear and emphatic statement this evening that they are prepared to go to Ottawa with absolutely free hands on this subject? If they can give that, assurance, then the stock raisers of this country still have some hope, but if such an assurance is not forthcoming, and meat and pig products are left out, as they are in this Schedule, from the operations of the Bill, it must cause great distress to one of the largest industries of the country looking to this House for help, and it will make it extremely difficult to reopen the question in the near future.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This is an Amendment which seems to us to be very vital and in regard to which we understood the Government were already fully pledged. We understood that the President of the Board of Trade gave a specific undertaking during the Election that so far as meat and wheat were concerned he
would be no party to any Government which would impose a tax upon them. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman assents to the remark which I have just made. It is obviously impossible for the Government to leave this Debate without stating, quite categorically, whether they have in fact decided now to leave meat on the Free List as being a redemption of an election pledge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. That is entirely in opposition to the nod of the head which I got from the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps they have already agreed to differ upon this point. I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they have not made up their minds. On the other hand, I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that he has made up his mind anyway on this matter, and that so far as he is concerned he is going to be no party to the taxation of meat.
When one comes to consider the merits of the case, and one looks at it from the point of view of the consumer, the merits are undoubtedly in favour of excluding meat from taxation. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has put forward the case which appeals to him on behalf of the farmers, but there are very large numbers of people in this country, consumers, who not very long ago suffered severe cuts in their income, and that they should now have imposed upon them, in addition to those cuts, an increase in price of a most material commodity which they consume, seems to us to be wholly unfair and not to be justified by any advantage which, as the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) admits, would be a very small or negligible one to the farmers of this country. It would be putting against the probable increase in price really no benefit at all to any other member of the community. We do beg that the Government will make their position perfectly clear, and especially the President of the Board of Trade, so that the country may know, now, whether it is a matter of firm policy that meat shall not be taxed, or whether it is merely a matter to be thrown into some bargain at Ottawa.

Viscount LYMINGTON: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) for a moment seemed to touch on
the question of whether this is expediency or principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, in dealing with the question of putting maize into the Free List, that these matters are decided as a question of expediency and not as a question of principle. Surely, the boot in the present case is on the other foot, and he might well omit meat from the Free List on the question of principle instead of leaving it in, as now, on tike question, a very doubtful one, of political expediency. We are told, as the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said, that if we can organise the farmers in this country we shall get a new heaven possibly, somehow or other, under some form of Government protection, but we want something a little more certain and a little more sure before we dare trust ourselves to that or before even our bankers will let us do anything in the way of organising meat, which we know we can do if we get the chance.
It is obvious that 10 per cent. on meat, here or there, "Sir Robert"—[Interruption]. I am always told that the highest statesmanship is to be able to give a successful prophecy. It is obvious that 10 per cent. on meat of any sort is going to make very little difference in the case of the consumer or in the case of the farmer. If we are always going to judge the case for Protection as a matter for expediency and to deal with all meats included in the Schedule in accordance with the amount of political pressure that arises, it is easy to see that the man who shouts the loudest gets the most for the Free List. If we definitely affirm a matter of principle that we must apply some form of Protection, not of the very feeblé kind of 10 per cent., to the agricultural industry we shall have an assurance for the future health of the country and the balance of our trade; and our national life will be secured. At this moment we know that tariffs on industrial products mean that we can supply our home market very quickly. It is not very difficult to quadruple the output of a factory which is working quarter time, but nothing short of a miracle can make a cow calve four times in one year. As regards the breeding of our livestock this may be dealt with on what the Minister of Agriculture calls a quantitative regulation, but we have no guarantee at the moment that we shall have any regula-
tion of any sort beyond what we know of the Minister's opinion and good will and of the enormous amount of agreeing to differ amongst his colleagues.
If I may disagree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we can assure the stability of our exchange, which we are so afraid of losing, better by having larger quantities of foodstuffs produced in these islands. If we go on a system of agreeing to differ on each point of principle it weakens the whole case for Protection and the whole fabric of Government at a time when we must move quickly. I notice the Chancellor has included whale oil in the Free List as long as it is produced by our own ships. Indeed, this Government will be very like a whale in the wide ocean, which, handicapped by its internal organisation, is incapable of swallowing anything but very small fish, but on a question of difference is always able to spout, and, finally, when it yields to the inevitable harpoonist it yields a most excellent quantity of blubber. Time is very short. We must deal with the agricultural situation quickly, and if we are going to pass to-night the exemption of all meat and bacon and all mutton from taxation, without any hope that they will be taken into consideration at Ottawa, without hope that the very key of all our home agricultural industry is going to be swiftly and easily dealt with, it will mean only that in the end we must face harpoonist unless we immediately solve the question and deal with it quickly and properly.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Before I address myself to the Amendment and the powerful speeches which have been made in support of it, I would ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer arising out of his speech. He told us that the hair of all animals was to be exempt, and I would like to know whether in that category are included bristles? Probably the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give me a reply?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I gave a recent Ruling. That question cannot be raised on this Amendment.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I bow to your Ruling and I shall address myself to
the Amendment and the powerful speeches made in support of it, that the whole of meats should be exempt from duty. Like the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) I am a whole-hearted supporter of the Bill, but unlike him, I do not think that if the main items of foodstuffs were included in the Bill as being exempt, we should improve the Bill. Rather do I think that it would be a definite falling off from the high standard of necessity which at the moment the country demands. The view that I put forward is based, not on any narrow conception of the desirability of any particular industry being dealt with, but on the broad considerations which have brought this Government into power, and on the broad economic considerations which exist in the country to-day.
The proposals of the Bill to protect the home market, to knit the Empire together in one economic unit, to have a tariff as a means of bargaining power, to facilitate the export trade, to tax foreign imports in order to provide revenue—none of these proposals is new: they are proposals which have been part and parcel of our political and economic controversies for many years, and they would continue to be part and parcel of our controversies for many years to come, if it had not been for the rising of a crisis in the country last year. That crisis was caused by one insistent fact, that side by side with the knowledge that we were closing down works week by week and month by month, we were importing into this country the very produce of those works in increasing quantities. [An HON. MEMBER: "Agriculture!"] Those were special circumstances. We had had experience before of falling trade, but we had never had the experience in which the very goods which we were making and which had been sold in the home markets in the past freely and at remunerative prices, were gradually being undermined.
10.30 p.m.
As regards agriculture, I am quite prepared to deal with that point. But the unique circumstance of last year, the tremendous fact, was the fall in prices, resulting in one factory after another finding itself unable to produce at the cost of production at which goods were being sold in our market. The cause of the economic
crisis which brought this Government into power was the continuous and non-intermittent fall in the level of wholesale prices. If the cause of the crisis was the fall in prices, then quite clearly, we are not going to deal with the problem unless this Tariff Bill does, in fact, raise prices. It was the dumping of goods in this market which, last year, caused the crisis, and the point which must be realised, both inside and outside the House of Commons, is that the main virtue of a Tariff Bill is the fact that it will redress the fall in prices. The National Government had a mandate to deal with that fall in prices and decided to introduce protection of the home market for that purpose. If it is true, as I believe it is, that this Bill will raise prices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Members of all parties would entirely misconceive the situation if they did not realise that we must raise the level of wholesale prices if the country is to get out of the economic mess in which it is. Therefore, as I say, a Tariff Bill must redress the fall in prices, but it is of the utmost importance to consider, if this Bill will have, as we hope, the effect of dealing with that fall in prices, what will be the effect on the cost of living. True, it has been suggested that the inflationary effect of the Bill can be nullified by contraction of the volume of credit and currency, but, surely, this Bill is to keep out goods which are sold below the cost of production, to set more men at work—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of tariff policy on this Amendment. He must confine himself to the question of meat.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne. The particular point which I desire to make is that if the Bill is to be effective, its effect must be to raise prices and we must examine the repercussions of raising the wholesale price level on the cost of living. If you exclude the taxation of foodstuffs from the Bill, clearly you can have a material rise in the price level without any great corresponding increase in the cost of living. Therefore, my view is that until you have your industries at work,
until you have raised the price level to such a ratio that you can get your people at work, until you have raised the price level to such a figure that you can absorb your unemployed, it would be a great mistake to tax the basic articles of the food of the people.
It is quite true that you are entitled, as you are doing in this Bill, to divert the incidence of your food supplies, but it is a misuse of words to call taxing foodstuffs what is a mere cutting off of foreign supplies and diverting them into the direction of Colonial supplies. But bearing in mind the main considerations which we are up against to-day, the fact that we have gone off the Gold Standard and the fact that we have to endeavour to raise prices, in my view it would be a very great mistake and an undue hardship on the working-class population of this country if we were, at the present stage, to put a tax on the main, basic articles of food of the people.

Mr. TURTON: To return to our muttons, if I may, I want to put forward one or two reasons why I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this Amendment and the following Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman has urged the question of expediency, but it was expediency that caused the Jews to err in the early part of the Christian era. The Chancellor says, "It is expedient for one industry to die for the people," and that industry in this case is that of agriculture. We have got a Wheat Quota Bill dealing with the position of the cereal farmers, but at present there is no Measure put forward by the Government to deal with the position of the stock raisers. Since we went off the Gold Standard the position of stock raising has become progressively worse.
I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question at the end of last year as to what had been the effect on prices of feeding stuffs and stock between July and December. The answer he gave me was that beef had gone down 7s. per cwt., and yet all the feeding stuffs on which we rely for beef production had gone up by at least £1 a ton. The position of bacon at that time was that it had fallen by 1s. 2d. per score pound, but the price of barley meal had risen by £1 8s. a ton, and the position of bacon now is that instead of having gone down by 1s. 2d.,
it has gone down 50 per cent., by 4s. 6d. All that, we are asking for at present is that there should be a 10 per cent. duty to give agriculture a place on the map.
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the position of mutton quite separately from that of other meat, because I believe the position of mutton is stronger and that the sheep farmer has an unanswerable case. We have lost in the value of sheep in nine months from 20s. to 40s. a head. Our moor sheep have fallen by 20s. a head, and our better Leicesters and Southdowns have fallen in some cases by 40s. There would be no great increase in the price of food if we had a duty of 10 per cent. on meat. Apart from the English market what is the position? We provide 4,000,000 cwts. of mutton in these shores. The Empire sends 5,000,000 cwts., and only 2,000,000 cwts. comes from foreign countries—the Argentine and Uruguay. I do not think that it would be very difficult to get that 2,000,000 cwts. from the Empire. The figures of mutton production for the years 1913 to 1931 show the startling fact that our production of mutton in this country has fallen by 1,000,000 cwts.
If a duty was put on foreign mutton there would be an immediate recourse to the mutton of the Empire and to the latent possibilities of mutton in this country. Nobody would say that the working man would be hit by a 10 per cent. duty on mutton. It is not the staple diet of the working man as beef and bacon are. If no redress is given by the Government, many sheep farmers will be driven into the bankruptcy court in the next few months. They are asking the Government that something should be done for their last sales in May. If nothing is done, acres and acres of the Yorkshire welds and moorlands will go out of cultivation, and hundreds more farmers will go into the bankruptcy court. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended his hostility to this Amendment on the ground that it would put up the price of food at this dangerous juncture owing to our difficulty in the exchange. Surely if that be the argument, it would apply to every single article of food in this Bill. There must be some reason why the sheep farmer and the pig farmer are to be left out of any benefits that are to be given to agriculture while other
food producers are to have the benefit of a tariff. The mutton consumer is in a different position to the poultry consumer because the latter relies to a certain extent upon foreign production. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot deal with the whole question of meat today, I hope that he will give us this one concession in regard to mutton.
I am very grateful to him for the concession that he has made in regard to maize, which will help the pig farmers. It will mean that the pig farmer will no longer have his raw material taxed while his finished product comes free into the country. Maize, however, will not affect the mutton producer. The sheep farmer uses no maize for feeding his sheep; he does not in England, and I do not think that he does in Scotland or Northern Ireland. In England the putting of maize into the Free List will have very little effect on either the beef or the mutton producer. We are warned that we are untimely in our demand for this duty because the Minister of Agriculture may produce some quantitative regulations at a later stage. It is believed that would be a good sop to the over-zealous farmer. If it came before May, it would be some help to the sheep farmer, but the Minister of Agriculture must realise that for a man who is in a feeble condition and asks for an ambulance to take him to hospital, it is no answer to tell him you will give him a motor hearse which will take him to his funeral more quickly than the old cab horse. That is our position in agriculture. In Yorkshire at Christmas time there was a large meeting of agriculturists and Members of Parliament at which one heard tales of farmers who were bankrupt. I have heard of farmers who have farmed land for generation after generation who have gone into the Bankruptcy Court, during the last few months, on account of the inability of succeeding Governments to give any benefit to agriculture or to stock raisers. I do ask the Government to reconsider their decision.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: To encourage agricultural production is the crying need of the moment. No greater service can be performed either to the agriculturist, whose lot is so hard and difficult at the present time, or to the State, than doing all we can to assist the
industry. It is generally admitted that the country stands at the cross roads of its destiny. Free trade is a luxury which perhaps we could afford in times of prosperity, but it is certainly not a luxury we can afford when we are in the depths of economic depression. I have been greatly encouraged by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to maize and potash. That statement has profoundly affected my view on the matters under discussion. There are two points which agriculturists particularly desire to establish. One is that they should not be hampered or in any way prejudiced in the production of their agricultural commodities. The other point is that meat products shall not be excluded from consideration. In view of the statement made in regard to maize the first point has, I think, been fairly and properly met. With regard to the second point, the consideration of meat and its inclusion in or exclusion from the Schedule will not be ruled out. So far as I can understand the statement that has been made on the Floor of the House, I understand that the principle has been conceded by the Government that these matters shall be reviewed and considered. We have been told or given to understand that a quantitative control of meat imports is envisaged. We have been told that this matter will be the subject of consideration at the Ottawa Conference. If that action be taken, I, for one, feel that we can safely support the Government in this matter.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: At this late stage in our proceedings, I rise only to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in relation to the meat trade with the Argentine. I confess that as the representative of an industrial constituency where the purchasing power of the people has been sadly decreased by the prevailing depression I naturally welcome his statement that a tax is not to be placed upon meat. At the same time, I was hoping the Chancellor would disclose to the Committee that as a result of our beau geste in making a present of £4,500,000 to the Argentine arrangements had been come to under which the people of the Argentine would purchase an increasing quantity of goods from us, as a quid pro quo. As far as
I can see no advantage has been taken of the presence in this country of the Argentine commercial mission at this moment. We have to bear in mind the fact that we buy from the Argentine twice as much as we sell to that country, and it is a matter of grave regret that advantage of that situation has not been taken. It would have been in the interests of all concerned if the right hon. Gentleman had negotiated with the mission which is now over here especially for this purpose before he disclosed to the House of Commons the nature of the Government's decision. I do hope, although I welcome the statement he has made in regard to the taxation of meat, that the situation will not be lost sight of and that at some future date he will negotiate with the Argentine Government on this very grave problem.

Earl of DALKEITH: I wish for a moment to emphasise the great anxiety felt by the Scottish stock breeders and meat producers and the disappointment that the Government's proposals do not go further. They have been passing through a very critical period, and there does not appear to be anything in the Bill which will help that important branch of the industry in Scotland for at least two years to come. If the Government find at this stage that they are unable to agree to this Amendment, I do appeal to all individual Members of the Cabinet to consider the critical position which exists and to show to the country that they realise it and will take action as soon as they possibly can. I understand that this is the only opportunity which I shall have of referring to a small Amendment standing in my name to exclude from the Free List boneless meat not in carcass form. The Government have agreed to exclude from the list semi-manufactured meat. There are certain semi-manufactured meats in boneless form which have been coming in in oddments, which are of an inferior quality, and which do not come under the same inspection as meat produced in this country. It is a grievance of our meat producers that this meat should come in without the same inspection. It is a point which has been brought forward by the health inspectors for some time as a source of disease and which they are very much against. I submit briefly that on these grounds the Government should consider my Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night shows at any rate that the stock-raising farmer will be no worse off under the Bill than he is at present, but they will certainly be the only agricultural producers who are not getting anything at all from it. We have had certain differences of opinion as to whether or not a duty on meat could cause a rise in prices. Even supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right and that it would cause a rise in prices, I fail to understand why it should be the stock-raising farmer who has to suffer and why he should be the victim of political expediency. He is the only type of agricultural producer who is getting nothing from the Bill, and it certainly cannot be urged that the stock-raising farmer is not in need of some assistance. Ample evidence has been adduced by various people as to the catastrophic fall in prices in the last three years. Up to a short time ago the stock-raising farmers were not doing so very badly. Now they are, and they are suffering very severely indeed.
If it is not possible to exempt meat from this, then I ask the Minister to give stock-raising farmers some benefit and some advantage in some other way. Cannot, say, a system of quotas be applied? Cannot there be some response to the appeal that they have made? Cannot we have some pronouncement? The Government are going into the Ottawa Conference, and I hope they are going to do something in the interests of British agriculture.

Major HILLS: I know that the Committee is anxious to go to a Division, so I shall be very brief in my remarks. I only want, if I may, to express the profound disquiet which I felt when I heard the Chancellor's speech—a disquiet which, I think, will be general in the agricultural community. Stock raising is to be left out of our newly-planned State, while industry is to be given all the advantages of the new economic system that we are starting. Nothing is to be done for stock-raising, and, so far as I can see, nothing will be done. I hope that before this Debate closes the Chancellor will give us some kind of assurance that in the future something will be done to assist an industry that he knows is in a precarious position. He knows very well that a
good many farmers have given up arable farming because of the position in which they were placed, and have gone into stock raising, and they are greatly alarmed about the future. I am sure that the Chancellor must appreciate that if we are to start well the new State which we are trying to build, we must include all the most important branches of agriculture.
I remember listening a short time ago to a most eloquent speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and his speech was concerned with the formation of the modern economic State. I put it to him, Can you form a modern economic State and leave out a great branch of agriculture? I want to express the very great dismay with which the Chancellor's announcement will be received by the farmers. They will see that they are not to be included. Now is the time to include them. It is no good talking about something which may or may not come in the distant future. Now is the time of the parting of the ways. If we go forward with a system which is inclusive except for one very large part of our most important industry, I do not know when we shall be able to have it included. I believe that it is an unbalanced system. Expediency can be expediency on the right side as well as on the wrong side. When I listened to the deeply moving appeal in which the Chancellor some days ago talked about the alteration that will be produced in the country by this Bill, I did not find much expediency in that. Until agriculture is included, we cannot go forward as a well-organised and well-balanced State, the State which we all had hoped was to arise from this Bill.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. and gallant Friend who has just addressed the Committee has complained that this Bill must be condemned unless there were found in it something for every section of the community. While he was speaking for a section only of agriculture, he repeatedly spoke as though agriculture as a whole had nothing to gain from this Bill. [Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend does not agree with that statement, I very gladly accept his disclaimer of any such reading of his speech, because no one could fairly claim that
this Bill will not extend a considerable amount of assistance to some sections of agriculture. My right hon. and gallant Friend, and others who spoke for particular sections of agriculture, asked, "Why leave out this particular section, which is of such great importance, and which is treated in this way for reasons of political expediency?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members behind me say "Hear, hear," but it is not a question of political expediency; it is a question of economic and social expediency, and I do not think that we should be too impatient because it is not found to be possible to deal with every problem in the country at one and the same time. We have done, I think, a considerable amount of work in dealing with part of the most important problems before the country, but this particular problem, the problem of the stock-raiser, is one which I venture to suggest is not so easily dealt with by the methods of this Bill as many other sections of agriculture and industry are.
Some hon. Members, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) himself, have said that the farmer was not going to benefit by an import duty of 10 per cent. upon his products. Although I do not pretend to be an authority upon agricultural matters, it seems to me to be difficult to see how you are going to give adequate protection to the farmer who is carrying on this particular kind of farming without undertaking to impose duties at a very much higher level than the 10 per cent. of which we are speaking on this Amendment. But man does not live by bread alone, and to that saying one might add that the imposition of an import duty is not the only means of affording help, protection or assistance to a particular section of agriculture. My right hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken asked whether we could not do something else, and I agree that that is not at all an unreasonable attitude to take. If it were not that I do not like making promises unless I see exactly how I am going to fulfil them, I should be inclined to give my right hon. and gallant Friend the assurance for which he asks. But, while the Minister of Agriculture is, as I think is well known, at work now upon a scheme which may ultimately mean the
quantitative regulation of the imports of pig products, I do not know that he has got so far, at any rate at the present time, as to be able to say with confidence, "I see my way to a quota system with regard to beef or mutton." These things are all difficult; many of them are very new, especially as regards that way of dealing with them, and I think we may fairly ask hon. Members to have a little patience and let us first do some of the things which are not quite so difficult, and go on to the more difficult ones afterwards.
Some of my hon. Friends appeared to indicate that they did not understand my statement of the policy of the Government with regard to a, meat duty. I know I have many faults as a speaker, and I do not pretend to be an orator, but I am not generally accused of obscurity. I thought I had said quite plainly what our view was but I will try again. I want to assure Members generally, and my hon. and gallant Friend in particular, that there is no discrepancy between what I said and what was said earlier in the day by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. He was asked whether the Government delegation to Ottawa is going with a free hand, and his answer was that nothing would be ruled out from the discussions, neither meat nor any other article. But, he said, the ultimate decision in any case must, of course, be subject to any general considerations of domestic policy on the part of the Government concerned. What did he mean by considerations of domestic policy Precisely such considerations as I was putting to the Committee a little while ago. In this case I said we had to take into account the consideration of the cost of living. In present circumstances we considered that was what might be called a vulnerable point which had to be watched carefully and you could not afford to take risks. That is the sort of question of domestic policy which might override other considerations in the question of a duty upon meat. What I think my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to say is that, when the delegation goes to Ottawa, it shall not take into account any such considerations. I cannot give any such assurance as that This is not a question of political expediency. It is a question of economic considerations, and, whilst
those considerations rule at the present moment, it does not follow that they will always rule. Circumstances will change in such a way that in fact we can take risks that we should not be prepared to take to-day. At present the Committee must take it that it is the definite and considered opinion of the Government that they cannot afford to take that particular risk. I hope I have made it perfectly clear—I do not know whether I shall satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend—that it is not, in this case, those who shout the loudest who get the most.

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the Government are prepared to investigate the possibility of a quantitative import system for other meat besides pig meat?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My noble Friend, I think, will understand that I did not say that we would investigate that now. What I think I intended was that that was a subject which would be investigated in the future, but that there was another quantitative investigation taking place shortly with regard to bacon.

Earl WINTERTON: That is really my point. I understand that my right hon. Friend does not rule out—or to put it more strongly, is prepared to consider an inquiry into—the possibility of applying a quantitative system for meat other than pig products.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, certainly.

Mr. HASLAM rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

The CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members have expressed their feelings sufficiently. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will cut his remarks short.

Mr. HASLAM: I am sure the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will very considerably mitigate the disappointment that the agricultural world must necessarily feel at the greater part of the industry, namely, stock raising, being left out of the Bill. It is no question of a small section being not considered; it is a question of the greater part, and I cannot but think that when we come to the question of expediency, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government and the House do not realise the desperate nature of the crisis which is threatening the farming industry. From Tees to Thames, farmers have come to the end of their resources. The landlords cannot get any rent. Farms are going out of cultivation, the pastures are becoming devoid of the stock which we can raise better than any other country in the world, and the agricultural labourers are losing their employment by thousands. That is the situation. It is a desperate situation, and I once more bog of the Government to consider taking some immediate remedy.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'beef,' in line 7, stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 341; Noes, 44.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Blindell, James
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Borodale, Viscount
Chalmers, John Rutherford


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)


Albery, Irving James
Boulton, W. W.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Chotzner, Alfred James


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Christie, James Archibald


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colfox, Major William Philip


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Colman, N. C. D.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Browne, Captain A. C.
Colville, Major David John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchan, John
Cook, Thomas A.


Balniel, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cooke, Douglas


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Buchanan, George
Copeland, Ida


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Craven-Ellis, William


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Burnett, John George
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Barton, Capt. Basil Keisey
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crooke, J. Smedley


Batey, Joseph
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cape, Thomas
Cross, R. H.


Bernays, Robert
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crossley, A. C.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Carver, Major William H.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Daggar, George


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Janner, Barnett
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jennings, Roland
Ormiston, Thomas


Donner, P. W.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Drewe, Cedric
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Owen, Major Goronwy


Duckworth, George A. V.
John, William
Palmer, Francis Noel


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Patrick, Colin M.


Dunglass, Lord
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Eady, George H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pearson, William G.


Eastwood, John Francis
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Peat, Charles U.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Ker, J. Campbell
Penny, Sir George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Petherick, M.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Kimball, Lawrence
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Knebworth, Viscount
price, Gabriel


Elmley, Viscount
Knight, Holford
Pybus, Percy John


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lamb, sir Joseph Quinton
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leckie, J. A.
Ramsden, E.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Leonard, William
Rankin, Robert


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Liddall, Walter S.
Rea, Walter Russell


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Gilfett, Sir George Masterman
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mabane, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Runge, Norah Cecil


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Goldie, Noel B.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Salt, Edward W.


Gower, Sir Robert
McEwen, J. H. F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McGovern, John
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Graves, Marjorie
McLean, Major Alan
Savery, Samuel Servington


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Scone, Lord


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Selley, Harry R.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
MacMillan, Maurice Harold
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Grimston, R. V.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Grundy, Thomas W.
Magnay, Thomas
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F, (Dulwich)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Martin, Thomas B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Soper, Richard


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Maxton, James
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Harris, Sir Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hartington, Marquess of
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Milne, Charles
Stones, James


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chisw'k)
Storey, Samuel


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hillman, Dr. George B.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Strauss, Edward A.


Hirst, George Henry
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hornby, Frank
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick
Train, John


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nathan, Major H. L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
North, Captain Edward T.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nunn, William
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
O'Connor, Terence James
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David




Wells, Sydney Richard
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


White, Henry Graham
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)



Whyte, Jardine Bell
Womersley, Walter James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Lieut-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Major George Davies.


NOES.


Alexander, Sir William
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greene, William P. C.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P,
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Bracken, Brendan
Knox, Sir Alfred
Templeton, William P.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)


Burghley, Lord
Levy, Thomas
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Lymington, Viscount
Turton, Robert Hugh


Caine, G. R. Hall-
McKie, John Hamilton
Weymouth, Viscount


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Morrison, William Shephard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davison, Sir William Henry
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)



Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Remer, John R.
Sir Ernest Shepperson and Mr. Henry Haslam.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ropner, Colonel L.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — JURIES (EXEMPTION OF FIREMEN) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.